Willow Creek Was Wrong

A study of the "effectiveness of their programs and philosophy of ministry" from the leadership of Willow Creek Community Church reveals that it has been a "mistake" and is "not producing solid disciples of Jesus Christ." Read the story in Townhall.com here.

It appears that the church growth model brings in lots of people, but does not form strong Christians. And the report comes from inside Willow Creek. Bill Hybels says "we made a mistake." That's a pretty big mistake.

Comments

[Chris Roberts]

And they have decided to fix their mistake by.... Starting another program! As I understand what Hybels said, there aren't problems with anything they are doing, they just aren't doing enough...

[Greg]

I guess I'm surprised and I'm not. My exposure w/ seeker churches is usually that they have 'program' tracks for more established members, small groups and so forth. So I would have expected that from Willow Creek. I'm sure they must have, but he says in the article:
"We should have gotten people, taught people, how to read their bible between services, how to do the spiritual practices much more aggressively on their own."

What in the world else have you been telling them?!? Especially those on the "not a seeker anymore" track?

Two causes: One, I think a lot of this just might have as much to do with the people themselves. You can have a great curriculum, nice binders, and excited members of your "After-Church apologetics/Bible/evangelism/Francis Schaeffer 'How to have a Worldview' class"...but time and again, week 2 arrives, everyone shows up not having read their readings, because they are too busy, too busy, etc etc etc. Attendance dwindles, book highlighting lessens, and people are discouraged.

So what can you do? If your seekers want cheap grace, and won't read the shiny copy of 'Cost of Discipleship' they bought, because 'Lost' is on, will more Programs help?

Two: Maybe the existence of niche programs for every demographic too easily gives people the feeling of checking things off (I had 'ministry' meetings two nights this week! I'm doing well!), in lieu of having time at home to talk to neighbors, and read, and think, and pray.

He goes on to say:
"That we take out a clean sheet of paper and we rethink all of our old assumptions. Replace it with new insights. Insights that are informed by research and rooted in Scripture."

Maybe that's close. As the article says, rooted in scripture comes after rethink, research, etc. If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing but expecting different results, maybe there are answers not on the new blank sheet, but on those old crusty yellow sheets of paper...in the books of the NT, a book of Puritan hymns and the Book of Common Prayer.

(Or Touchstone's St James guide! Unpaid promotion :)

[Kyralessa]

It's interesting how that story starts out. I'd like to see a source for that quote by Dr. Spock, because I seriously doubt he ever said it. See also:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9C0CEED81538F931A35756C0A965948260

While that point may be tangential to the story, it's also illustrative of the type of sloppy journalism that is the standard these days.

[Bill R]

Well, at least they are re-thinking. That more than most groups do!

[Wolf N. Paul]

@Chris Roberts: I do not think you have heard or understod Hybels right. "We made a mistake" does not sound like "there aren't problems with anything we're doing". "We should have done ... we should have done ... we should have done ..." also doesn't sound like "there aren't problems with anything we're doing". So they are going to do something about it -- isn't that good? Anytime you do something with a large number of people (and that's what Willowcreek is/has) it's going to look like a program, that's simply the logistics of it.

So yes, they made a pretty big mistake, and they are admitting it and thinking about how to fix it -- it takes a pretty big man to do that.

I do not understand the negative tone of many of the reactions to that.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>So yes, they made a pretty big mistake, and they are admitting it and thinking about how to fix it -- it takes a pretty big man to do that.<<<

The problem, however, is their belief that they need to take out "a clean sheet of paper" and start from scratch. Which means they have learned nothing at all from their experience, since the first thing they did wrong the first time around was get out "a clean sheet of paper". The notion that a BOGSAT (Bunch of Guys Sitting Around A Table) can create a "mission/vision statement" and devise a means of both evangelization and catechesis that has more to offer than the accumulated wisdom of 2000 years of Christian Tradition would strike some of us as naive, others as incredibly arrogant.

For me, though, it is just another example of the secularization of Christianity, using the definition provided by Alexander Schmemann--conforming the Church to the standards of the world, as opposed to conforming it to its true nature as an icon of the Kingdom of God. The use of modern mass marketing techniques--from focus groups, to branding, to pandering--places filling the parking lot above the filling of souls. It is anthropocentric as opposed to theocentric--witness the apalling motto, "Let Jesus into Your Life", a complete inversion of the Fathers' view that we have to let our lives into Jesus.

But the key to success in any megachurch (or any group that subscribes to the Church Growth philosophy) is using Christ as a lifestyle accessory, as opposed to requiring the death of the old man and rebirth 'in Christ". The understanding that one has put on Christ and must now grow into him is not nearly so appealing as a bland "Jesus Loves Me, This I Know" mindset gaudied up with special lighting, acoustic effects and a pop orchestra. Maukish sentimentality is no substitute for sound theology, ascetic discipline and and reverential worship. It is no substitute for a life lived both sacramentally and liturgically--with particular focus on "the liturgy after the liturgy": "Let us go forth in peace, in the name of the Lord", the dismissal acclamation of the Divine Liturgy, tells us we have been commissioned, and that our best tool of evangelization is the life we lead once the service is over.

The constant desire to make Christianity "relevant" misses the point entirely. We are not made for this world, therefore, we are constantly irrelevant. People don't want "relevance", they want God. They are not (or should not) be looking for ways of making their lives more happy, orderly, or effective--they should be looking to establish a proper relationship with God through offering Him that which is his due: "Let us commend ourselves, and one another, and our whole life unto Christ our God"--this is a bit more of a commitment than most people are willing to make. That the objective of Christian life should be theosis--sharing in the divine nature, is something that one doesn't hear about much in Church Growth congregations.

There is also the whole problem of approaching Christianity in a rationalist manner; i.e., by the reading of books and tracts, through discussion groups, and the whole "How To" mentality favored by American culture--there's no place for mystery in this; it addresses only one part of the human person, and it treats faith as an exterior rather than interior condition. There is a reason why the Church from its beginning, looked towards stability in worship, and towards engaging the whole human person in it. There is a reason for fixed prayers, and spiritual exercises, the bowing, the kneeling, the sign of the cross, the smells and bells, the sacred images and all the rest. We are creatures of habit, and these habituate us through repetition to a posture appropriate for offering God the praises that are his due. The create the preconditions for prayerfully contemplating the divine mysteries and opening our hearts and minds and bodies to receive the grace that God has bestowed upon us. Only when the body, soul and spirit have been trained to worship can true theological contemplation begin. Yet this very necessary basic training is overlooked too often by people who see it as superficial, rote repetition, and (worst of all) "traditional". There is, as I noted, a certain hubris in that perspective--that one can, just like that, sit down and begin talking about God, when the first step in knowing God is shutting up and listening to Him. Small wonder, then, that the nature of the Willowcreek method is the direct antithesis of the Hesychia of the Orthodox monks. They seek first to attain the inner stillness that masters the passions, and thus opens them to the perception of the Uncreated Light that is true knowledge of God. They don't sit down and have encounter sessions, study groups, or ad hoc "praise services".

The monks have been at it since the fourth century. They've had their ups and downs, but they are still here, and their way has withstood and transcended the test of time--precisely because they never sit down with "a blank piece of paper" and try to start from scratch.

[Rob G]

"I do not understand the negative tone of many of the reactions to that."

Part of it, Wolf, is that critics of the seeker church/megachurch model have been saying for years what Hybels has just now realized. What you're hearing in these reactions is a certain amount of frustration with Hybels et al for not paying attention earlier.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>What you're hearing in these reactions is a certain amount of frustration with Hybels et al for not paying attention earlier.<<<

Not to mention (as I did) the ignorance bordering on contempt for the way that traditional Christianity has successfully evangelized and formed souls for close to 2000 years.

[DGP]

My experience has been that of Mr. Koehl's. Grace, salvation, mission are already offered to us -- in the Scriptures, the Fathers, the Liturgy, the witness of the martyrs and saints, and even in the accumulated wisdom of great theologians. Every attempt to reconstruct, say, a "new" manner of mission is really no more than works-righteousness in the worst sense, the sense of Galatians, a practical denial of the faith already handed down to us.

Since I'm RC, I'll use an example from the RCC. Far too many of us speak of "inculturation" cudely as a distillation of Christianity from one culture so that it can be readministered to another. We know there is no such thing as a pure, uninculturated Christianity, but our model for inculturation depends precisely upon the existence of such a thing, as if the spread of the Gospel depended merely upon the retranslation of the original Scriptures into the latest language.

A far more accurate model might be called "transculturation," in which one recognizes the historicity of the Christian faith as it is both professed and lived. The spread of the Gospel depends very much on the cultures through which it has traveled -- originally Jewish and Greek, and for many of us susbsequently Latin and English and onwards to wherever we happen to be. Christianity as we have received is shaped by these intervening cultures not merely in superficial ways such as the design of liturgical paraphernalia, but in more far-reaching ways via the trajectories in exegesis and hermeneutics, the occasions for martyrdom and the popular standards for sanctity.

Yet even highly educated and competent RCs continue to speak of inculturation in a much more simplistic way. It's not because we lack subtlety, but because this simpler model tolerates our own agency: *We* get to be in charge, *we* get to direct the process. The more sophisticated approach I've called transculturation puts us in the awkward position of merely cooperating with a process far greater than ourselves, while inculturation permits us to become the controlling agents and relegates the Holy Spirit to a safely remote position as the One Who began the process centuries ago.

I could go on with examples. My main point is to claim that a deeply embedded pride is often at work in our reform efforts. That pride invites "the smoke of Satan" into the Church, no matter how contrary the appearance.

[Bobby Winters]

In my mind, Willow Creek has always been associated with growth. This is the reason people have talked about it at all. They are operating from a context that does not favor fertility, which has been one of the great growth mechanisms of Christianity historically. Indeed, as had been observed here one is now looked at in disdain if one has more than two kids. It's as if the Lord say go forth and...be static!

If you are not growing your own, you have to sell your faith and so far the technique has been cutting the price. As Danny Devito said in Ruthless People, "The first thing a bad salesman does is cut the price. Bad salesmen make me sick!"

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>They are operating from a context that does not favor fertility, which has been one of the great growth mechanisms of Christianity historically.<<<

One of them, but by no means the most important. Historically, the mass conversions of whole peoples--whether it was the Georgians and Armenians, the Romans after Constantine, or the Slavs, or the Anglo-Saxons, or the Irish, did more to grow the Church than did any real organic growth until the 19th century, when population generally took off. So evangelization more than procreation has been the key to the Church's success--when evangelization dies, the Church degenerates into a social artifact, Christianity a factor in ethnic identity. This has been a problem for the Orthodox and the Greek Catholics, one they are only now beginning to overcome.

So how did the ancient Church evangelize? Certainly preaching and sermons had their place, but more important than those was the liturgical life the Church brought to the people, which provided them with a God-centered order and focus to their lives, and instilled the yearly cycles with deeper meaning. Undoubtedly the faith of many converts in those days was a mile wide and an inch deep, but conversion is an inner process that generally occurs after the outer person has been conformed and habituated to the rhythms of Christian life, and NOT the other way around--God smites you on the head, you see the light, and THEN learn to live like a Christian. Paul's experience was extraordinary, not the norm.

This habituation of the mind and body occurs through living the life of the Church--a regular cycle of daily prayers, of weekly services, of fasting and feasting, which serve two purposes: they initiate the believer into the Holy Mysteries; and they inculcate the true faith in an intuitive and therefore deeply rooted manner. All these are lacking in the magachurch environment, which of necessity is focused on the lowest common denominator and the broadest possible appeal. The result is a watered down, washed out Christianity which is really more a social meeting than an act of worship. No wonder, then, that people's interior attitudes seldom change in such an environment.

[smh]

So far as a church strategizes to bring large numbers of people under the sound of the Gospel, it is doing the right thing. Rob G. is right--Willow Creek's characteristic mistakes beyond that, which have produced a church like the Potomac--a mile wide and two feet deep--are essentially "mistakes" for which their fellow-Evangelicals have been criticizing them for years, and are susceptible to "fixing" processes as far as the lights of its communion will allow. That being done, numbers will surely go down, but a deeper form of Evangelical Christianity may eventuate--and yes, it would be done with "programs," for this is the way these people think of the planning and execution of mission work. Nothing essentially wrong with that as far as I can tell. Mistakes of this sort can be fixed, as long as one is willing to pay the price for doing it. Dr. Hybels is to be congratulated for looking at the results of the study, not pretending they aren't there, and that they aren't indicative of a monumental mistake. Were this the only fundamental problem, the honesty we see here would be heartening and show much promise for the future of the movement.

But it does not, because the far more elemental problem of the Willow Creek Movement, which cannot be fixed, only repented of, is bringing people in and bedding them down with Jezebel: its enthusiastic introduction and enforcement of the egalitarian heresy. This is a corruption of the Gospel itself, a misrepresentation of of nature and character of God--an alteration of what "Jesus" means, and hence the message the church established itself to teach and preach. This is not a mistake that can be fixed in the manner of an intelligent course correction that a competent and courageous business leader might make, seeing that a bold experiment in corporate growth has not produced the desired results. We alter the metaphor: This is more like a cancerous growth that will kill the body if not completely removed. So long as it remains the Willow Creek Movement is itself a malignancy.

[W.E.D. Godbold]

Rodney Stark suggests that it was pretty much just "viral evangelism" at least from Paul through Constantine: friends telling friends about it. If you have credibility as a friend (that is, as a person who loves) then you have the makings for an effective evanglist. (This isn't to discount the "natural" growth through birthrates.)

Stark also notes modern studies of evangelism (I remember the case of how the Moonies spread) and how these follow the same model.

Stark has some interesting things to say about the depth/effectiveness of the initial Christian evangelism and the rate at which heresies and (then later) the Protestant Reformation spread in Europe.

[W.E.D. Godbold]

"rate" should be replaced with "extent" in the above post

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>So far as a church strategizes to bring large numbers of people under the sound of the Gospel, it is doing the right thing<<<

I do not believe that such strategizing can or should be the first priority of any Church or community. The emphasis should always be on bearing witness to the truth of Jesus Christ, Son of God, risen from the dead, trampling down death and bestowing eternal life. If that is done correctly, no further strategy is needed. In other words, if you live it, they will come.

[mark]

In 1 Corinthians, Paul states: “For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.” I have often wondered if there is not a parallel between Genesis 3 and 1 Corinthians. Christ says He is really present in the Lord’s Supper and that we are fed spiritually through the body and the blood. Christians deny the real presence, they make their understanding the measure of their faith, they refuse to walk in faith. And I wonder if the result is a type of spiritual death, both for the individual and for denominations. No one need "understand" how the bread and wine are Christ's body and blood (in fact no one really can), they just need to believe (on faith) that it is. But if you reject the real presence, then the method by which you deny the real presence works with every doctrine or Scripture and you use that method to deny other doctrines as well.

I wonder if the means by which the real presence has been denied hasn’t, in some measure, caused some of the problems which today plague the church. God works through means. We live in an age where people want to see God at work but they reject Him precisely where He has promised to work, word and sacrament. I wonder if some of treatment (I was going to say disdain) of the liturgy is the result. God coming to us, to give us His gifts is replaced with an attempt to make ourselves the focus of Sunday morning. The whole notion behind contemporary worship is ignore God and focus on me, on man. I wonder if part of the problem with contemporary evangelism is that the focus is wrong, the focus is on man rather than who God is and what He has done in Christ and what He is doing. The Holy Spirit convicts of sin to bring us to faith in Christ and yet whole denominations deny that some sins are sin because they refuse to accept what God has said. The Holy Spirit illuminates Scripture and yet whole denominations have the Holy Spirit contradicting Himself (the Spirit is doing a new thing) declaring that what was sin is no longer a sin.

I guess that I think this seeker movement is a decent end but wrong means. And it is nice that they are realizing that something has gone wrong but that they still think the answer more of what was wrong from the beginning.

[Joe Long]

So, when you're done being a "Seeker", do you become a "Founder?"

(Or do you "founder"?)

Not having really taken an interest in this movement, I do still have to say it's refreshing to see anyone admit major mistakes - ever.

[DGP]

>>...[T]he far more elemental problem of the Willow Creek Movement, which cannot be fixed, only repented of, is bringing people in and bedding them down with Jezebel: its enthusiastic introduction and enforcement of the egalitarian heresy. This is a corruption of the Gospel itself, a misrepresentation of of nature and character of God--an alteration of what "Jesus" means, and hence the message the church established itself to teach and preach.

Yes, and from another angle it's also a denial of election, in important soteriological motif threading from creation to Abraham to Moses and David and the prophets, all coming to a focus in Christ and then radiating outwards again in many ways. These ways include Tradition itself, for divine election of persons is not always separable from the binding value of institutions as Tradition -- witness the eternal importance of the Judahite dynasty because of David, no matter the original worthlessness of monarchy as such and no matter the continuing apostasy of the monarchs.

Is egalitarianism not the interpersonal equivalent of de novo "programming" for the Church, a flattening of all graces into a mush of equivalencies and equivocations?

[David Gray]

>I do not believe that such strategizing can or should be the first priority of any Church or community. The emphasis should always be on bearing witness to the truth of Jesus Christ, Son of God, risen from the dead, trampling down death and bestowing eternal life. If that is done correctly, no further strategy is needed. In other words, if you live it, they will come.

Well said Stuart.

[labrialumn]

What is meant by 'egalitarianism' in this context? I'm presently struggling with how to comply or not comply with a dogmatic edict to use "gender inclusive language" and treat all cultures the same coming from the allegedly confessional Lutheran grad program I'm in.

I've never really had to deal with that contempt to my culture and language before, or that denial of the objective truth of Scripture that is implied in the statement about culture.

I do not know if this is to go as far as the identity of the Blessed Trinity, or not. I've heard that in some places, it does.

[Beth]

Labrialumn, you might check out the Touchstone archives for articles on inclusive language if you haven't already -- there's some very good information there.

[Kevin]

Re: Labrialumn

One of the best online Touchstone articles on inclusive language is here:
http://www.touchstonemag.com/docs/issues/14.8docs/14-8pg33.html

My favorite is "A Fig Leaf for the Creed", which is not online, but is in Touchstone's "Creed & Culture" book. There are some excerpts here, though:
http://christianinsem.wordpress.com/2007/07/14/a-fig-leaf-for-the-creed/

Finally, a friend & I have been trying to get a blog/forum started discussing these issues for seminarians (and I suppose grad students) encountering them for the first time. Perhaps you'd like it:
http://christianinsem.wordpress.com

[kate]

Thanks to Stuart Koehl for putting into words that I can pass on to others what I mean when I take exception to Willow Creek and its ilk.

[Judy Warner]

I agree, Kate. In fact, I posted the article about Willow Creek on Lucianne.com and borrowed a paragraph of Stuart's as a comment (I did say it was borrowed).

[Josiah A. Roelfsema]

Kevin, FYI, the first link seems to be broken.

[DGus]

I think the stories describing this recent "study" may misunderstand it. Apparently, it is not really a self-critical analysis of Willow Creek by Willow Creek, and it does not reflect any fundamental shift by the Apostles of the seeker-church movement. See:

http://blog.christianitytoday.com/outofur/archives/2007/10/willow_creek_re_1.html#more

[Kevin]

->Josiah<- Thanks, they must have switched their archive format - the right link is here:

http://touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=14-08-033-f

[Dale Decker]

"In other words, if you live it, they will come." ~ Stuart Koel

Just to keep things even, Jesus said go, make, baptize and teach. So if you live it, you will go. ;>

[Dale Decker]

oops.... I left out an h... Suart Koehl

[Dale Decker]

Dang... now I left out a t... Stuart Koehl

[GL]

This all reminds me of a church billboard I saw in another town just a few days ago, which read, next to the smiling face of the pastor: "We Believe in You!" I turned to my wife and said, "Well, there is their first problem. Perhaps they should believe in Him instead." I am sure that "churches" which erect billboards extolling the virtues of the lost will attract crowds just like Willow Creek, but what about the Gospel message.

I guess my grandfather was old fashion and he certainly didn't preach at a megachurch, but he did tell those present that if they still believed in themselves, they were damned to an eternity in hell. What they needed to do was to stop believing in themselves and place their faith in Him. Maybe Bill Hybels should try that approach. Attendance will drop without a doubt, but he might actually lead more people to a true faith in Christ and disciple them to live out that faith in a meaningful, not a superficial, manner.

[Fr. Robert McMeekin]

A friends sent me this today in response to this article:

“Naturally, since I myself am a writer, I do not wish the ordinary reader to read no modern books. But if he must read only the new or only the old, I would advise him to read the old. And I would give him this advice precisely because he is an amateur and therefore much less protected... against the dangers of an exclusive contemporary diet. A new book is still on its trial and the amateur is in no position to judge it. It has to be tested against the great body of Christian thought down the ages, and all its hidden implications (often unsuspected by the author himself) have to be brought to light.”

--From the Introduction by C. S. Lewis to On the Incarnation, by St. Athanasius

Perhaps Pastor Hybels, rather than re-inventing the wheel, can pursue the tried and true that has come before and still endures. A young Protestant visitor to an Orthodox Divine Liturgy asked a brother priest following the service, "When do you have the 'contemporary service'?" My friend's reply: "That was the contemporary service."

And it has been 'contemporary' for at least the last 1700 years!

[Clifford Simon]

Labrialumn,

Why don't you try the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood? I don't know much about this group, but they do seem to be our allies.

http://www.cbmw.org/

---

I really appreaciate that Geoffrey has posted this. I once attended a church that seems to really admire the Willow Creek model. I hope this recognition of error spreads... can repentence spread virally, like evangelism?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>"When do you have the 'contemporary service'?" My friend's reply: "That was the contemporary service."<<<

You mean "New Ritual"--in English?

[Bill R]

It should come as no surprise that those of us who are Reformed/confessional are very wary of the "seeker-friendly" movement. But one factor hasn't been mentioned: the sheer size of these mega-churches. Past a certain point, local churches or parishes simply become too "big for their britches." "Seeker-friendly" churches, by and large, confuse size with success.

[labrialumn]

I am encountering it for the first time in the sense of it being a dogma that I must submit to and obey. In spite of conscience. From my synod's officials in this area who hold much power over me.

[Clifford Simon]

Labrialumn, what kind of grad program are you in? Are they being picky about the wording of essays you write and turn in for a grade, or is it something more?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I am encountering it for the first time in the sense of it being a dogma that I must submit to and obey. In spite of conscience. From my synod's officials in this area who hold much power over me.<<<

I never truckle--the advantages of getting out of the academic cursus honorum include the power to write as one wants. Occasionally some of my collaborators try to impose inclusive language, but as they are too lazy to work with the printer on composition and typesetting, I always get the last rewrite.

Working for the military, however, is another matter. What can one say of an institution whose official style guide requires the spelling of guage as "gage"? Or which found the word "unmanned" too offensive and so has been experimenting with concepts such as "uninhabited" or "uncrewed" vehicles?

So I submit my stuff, and they change it. As the military perfers its official documents to be anonymous, I don't have to associate myself with it.

[Fr. Robert McMeekin]

Sorry, Stuart, I'm not taking the bait. BTW, it's spelled "gauge"

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Sorry, Stuart, I'm not taking the bait. BTW, it's spelled "gauge"<<<

The brain is willing, but the fingers are weak.

[Kirk]

Interesting perspective on this issue from Lark News--

http://www.larknews.com/october_2007/secondary.php?page=5

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>http://www.larknews.com/october_2007/secondary.php?page=5<<<

"Whatever that means"--get's right to the heart of the matter.

[Judy Warner]

I never saw Lark News before. What is it, The Onion for Christians? It's hilarious.

[Bill R]

"What is it, The Onion for Christians?"

Basically, yes.

[Bill R]

And if you think that was funny, try this:

http://www.larknews.com/october_2007/index.php

[Jenna]

Issues, Etc. ran a program featuring sound bytes from Willow Creek's leadership conference, where the findings of the report were announced.

http://kfuoam.org/ie_archive_Oct_07.htm

The program date was October 23.

In particular listen for one leader's contemptuous dismissal of the congregants who are telling leadership they're not being fed.

[smh]

Labrialumn:

Dogmatic edicts requiring people to use "inclusive language" have many uses. Primarily designed to solidify ideological control, they quickly identify potential "problem people" so they can be dealt with in whatever way the controllers see fit. The central questions for those who take issue with the controllers' philosophy are (1) whether they are prepared to resist--this involves willingness to take an unpopular position, defend it, and live with the results of doing so--and (2) whether the controllers have the power and inclination actually to use the edict as a housecleaning tool--to enforce the mandate with disciplinary force. In my experience the second rarely happens because intimidation usually suffices to keep the institution firmly in their control without taking the risk of the adverse publicity which the actual punishment of the resistant might bring.

A few years ago Touchstone, by my hand, tested Trinity Evangelical Divinity School's (!) Graduate Studies Manual's inclusive language statement, which appeared in that publication as a "faculty mandate." We did this primarily by publishing it in the magazine for the perusal of whatever of the school's Evangelical constituency would happen upon it there. It appeared that Trinity ignored this as long as it could, but when it came to the attention of the Evangelical Free Church's ministerium, the fat apparently hit the fire. A good many powerful people brought their guns to bear on the school's administration. The reaction? The statement disappeared from the Manual, the administration claimed the inclusive language statement was never really a "faculty mandate" (as the wording clearly said it was), but was inserted in the Manual by a teaching fellow who was not a full member of the faculty and, in any event, was no longer with the school. Funny, though, how it had managed to survive in the Manual for years as a "faculty mandate." That's when I learned what kind of people actually ran Trinity.

Evangelical schools that once had statements like this rarely do now. Instead one will find that students and faculty are admonished somewhere in the official papers that the use of inclusive language is a matter of Christian charity--one is to use it because not everyone is agreed on the matter, and using traditional English causes offense to some Christian brethren or sistren. So--we won't threaten to punish you if you don't fall in line here, but you're a mildly bad person if you insist on offending people by not using inclusive language. That's how they do it these days. A slimy lot.

You will find that the "moral approach" lately taken by Evangelical schools to inclusive language, however, is far more firmly entrenched in the mainline institutions, where the segue between "difference of opinion" to "traditional language is sexist, hence immoral" was made and confirmed many years ago. In Evangelical institutions, use of traditional English is mildly immoral because it's inconsiderate; in mainline institutions the breach of charity is far more profound because the "sexism" it represents is part of an official catalog of sins in which it has the gravity something like fornication or homosexuality (now no longer on the list) once possessed. Those who insist on using sexist language are regarded not simply as vulgar, but wicked.

What you face is the necessity of a brutally honest assessment of your beliefs and how they will likely be received in the institutions in which you plan to live them out. Many at this point decide that it is a good time to capitulate to the Spirit of the Age and live at peace with it, others decide it is time to go to war, others retrench by changing affiliations.

[DGP]

>>Instead one will find that students and faculty are admonished somewhere in the official papers that the use of inclusive language is a matter of Christian charity--one is to use it because not everyone is agreed on the matter, and using traditional English causes offense to some Christian brethren or sistren.

It's worth calling attention to the fact that this does NOT parallel the biblical injunction concerning meat and vegetables. In the case of inclusive language, those who are offended are not scandalized in their weakness, but rather seeking the opportunity to take offense, and use their offense as a weapon for controlling others.

[Yaknyeti]

In the case of inclusive language, those who are offended are not scandalized in their weakness, but rather seeking the opportunity to take offense, and use their offense as a weapon for controlling others.

I'm not so confident on this. I talked regularly about this with a number of friends in college, and one in particular seemed to simply have a gut-level reaction against "exclusive" language, based on her upbringing. Wouldn't that be more of a weakness than a weapon? (She, of course, would see it as neither.)

Or is it automatically a weapon if her dislike leads her to ask me to change, even when she knows I mean no offense by my words?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I'm not so confident on this.<<<

I am. Two teenage daughters and one highly educated wife, all of whom loathe inclusive language, together with discussion of the topic within my parish and among the many academic women I know from my think-tank work. Those who favor inclusive language fall into two campts--the perpetually aggrieved, and the terminally stupid.

[DGP]

>>I talked regularly about this with a number of friends in college, and one in particular seemed to simply have a gut-level reaction against "exclusive" language, based on her upbringing. Wouldn't that be more of a weakness than a weapon?

There might be, were it true, but I doubt it. The very fact that you "talked regularly" about it suggests it's not so much a product of gut reaction or upbringing as a conditioned response. That is, she learned (or was taught) to associate the "exclusive" language with pains from her own upbringing, and so now dutifully recalls childhood pains whenever "man" is used as the third person singular pronoun, where sex is unknown.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>That is, she learned (or was taught) to associate the "exclusive" language with pains from her own upbringing, and so now dutifully recalls childhood pains whenever "man" is used as the third person singular pronoun, where sex is unknown.<<<

It means that (a) lacks a real understanding of English grammar and syntax; and (b) that despite all the self-esteem gibberish with which young people are indoctrinated these days, she has such a poor appreciation of her own worth that she can be totally unhinged by a pronoun.

[Judy Warner]

Kyralessa, I found a couple of sources that confirm the Spock quote, or at least the sentiment (weeding out all the google references to Star Trek). One piece from 1974 quotes a Redbook article thus:

Latest to admit the error of preconceived notions is Dr. Benjamin Spock, the baby care specialist, who says he helped create a generation of "brats."

In a recent issue of Redbook Magazine, Spock blames teachers, psychologists, social workers and physicians - himself included - for depriving parents of their self-assurance in dealing with their children.

Spock once was the leading exponent of permissiveness. Now he says parents aren't firm enough with their children for fear of losing their love or incurring their resentment.

"This is a cruel deprivation that we professionals have imposed on mothers and fathers," Spock declares.

Now, get this:

"Of course, we did it with the best of intentions," confesses Spock.

The U.S. News obituary said:

While he thought he made it clear that parents should be firm, later editions of the book, originally titled "The Common Sense Book of Baby and Child Care," stressed that children need standards and that parents also have a right to respect.

"Parents began to be afraid to impose on the child in any way," he said.

It seems that he didn't so much as recant as bemoan the way parents had interpreted his advice, which was a reaction to the very rigid child-rearing advice parents were receiving in the 1930s and 1940s. Parents were being told not to pick up their babies when they cried, to put them on a rigid schedule, and in general to put molding the child way above loving the child. (Of course, any parent who relies on an "expert" to tell him how to raise his child is a pretty poor parent.)

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Of course, any parent who relies on an "expert" to tell him how to raise his child is a pretty poor parent.<<<

But America has long been in thrall to credentialism and the cult of the expert--it's part of our innate pragmatism that we look to specialists to tell us how to do things that in other countries people either do out of instinct or learn for themselves. See, for example, the myriad "how to" books that proliferate on the best seller lists--including sex manuals, because Americans need to be told how to do something that billions upon billions of human beings figured out for themselves for close to a 100,000 years.

[Stuart Koehl]

Given that the first Boomers have now reached Social Security age, I expect the next Big Thing in self-help books will be manuals on how to die. Being one of the last Boomers (in fact, some demographers put me in a separate cohort, for which I am eternally grateful), I fully intended to indulge my Schadenfreude watching all my self-centered, self-indulgent near-peers behaving as though they were the first generation in history to shuffle off this mortal coil. I anticipate they'll make a mess of it, as they have almost every other thing to which they have put their hands.

[DGP]

>>Being one of the last Boomers....

Oh, good grief, we're the same age.

[Judy Warner]

Old lady that I am, I'm a War Baby, so I watch the Boomers with a sad shake of the head at their self-indulgence. War Babies live with strong influences from our parents' having lived through the Great Depression so soon before our births, and many of us had our fathers away at war during our earliest years.

Here's an entertaining New York Times article called "It’s My Funeral and I’ll Serve Ice Cream if I Want To" -- how right you are, Stuart.

"Baby boomers are all about being in control,” said Mr. Duffey, who started his company after running a chain of funeral homes. “This generation wants to control everything, from the food to the words to the order of the service. And this is one area where consumers feel out of control.”

What they want, he said, are services that reflect their lives and tastes. One family asked for a memorial service on the 18th green of their father’s favorite golf course, “because that’s where dad was instead of church on Sunday mornings, so why are we going to church,” Mr. Duffey said. “Line up his buddies, and hit balls.” Another wanted his friends to ride Harleys down his favorite road, scattering his ashes.

The biggest change, Mr. Duffey said, is that as more families choose cremation — close to 70 percent in some parts of the West — services have become less somber because there is not a dead body present. “The body’s a downer, especially for boomers,” Mr. Duffey said. “If the body doesn’t have to be there, it frees us up to do what we want. They may want to have it in a country club or bar or their favorite restaurant. That’s where consumers want to go.”

Mr. Duffey has a suggested time limit for speeches: five minutes. “We urge them, ‘Don’t ad-lib. Get up and read it. It’s O.K., people expect it.’ ”

The other way Boomers are going are "green" funerals, conducted by such as a company called Natural Endings in England:

At Natural Endings we have a huge range of eco-coffins (cardboard, willow/wicker, bamboo, seagrass, jute, sustainable wood). We have an expertise in Green Funerals and Woodland/Natural Burial and Home Burial. We are recognised for our experience and are regularly asked to comment and contribute to BBC television and radio programs as well as broadsheet newspaper articles.

[Stuart Koehl]

See then, this hillarious essay by P.J. O'Rourke at The Weekly Standard:

(http://www.theweeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/280covsh.asp)

Generation Vex
The (really) long goodbye of the Baby Boomers.
by P.J. O'Rourke
11/05/2007, Volume 013, Issue 08

(Some exerpts):

O rend thy garments, America! Heap ashes upon thy head. We, the generation of generations--triumphant in our multitudes, invincible, indomitable, insufferable--have come into our inheritance. Hereby we claim our birthright. Give us all your money.

The pittance that is a current Social Security payment was intended to maintain the doddering retirees of yore in their accustomed condition of thin gruel and single-car garages. Such chump change will hardly suffice for today's vigorous sexagenarians intent on (among other things) vigorous sex, in places like Paris, St. Bart's, and Phuket.

How can present Social Security allotments be expected to fund our sky-diving, bungee-jumping, hang gliding and white-water rafting, our skiing, golf and scuba excursions, our photo safaris to Africa, bike tours of Tuscany and sojourns at Indian ashrams, our tennis clinics, spa treatments, gym memberships and personal fitness training, our luxury cruises to the Galapagos and Antarctica, the vacation homes in Hilton Head and Vail, the lap pools, Jacuzzis, and clay courts being built thereat and the his and hers Harley Davidsons?

And we haven't even touched on the subject of Social Security's civil union life partner, Medicare. It won't take much sky-diving, bungee-jumping, hang gliding, and white-water rafting before we all require new hips, knees, elbows, back surgery, pacemakers, and steel plates in our heads. And the expense of these will be as nothing compared to the cost of our pharmacological needs. Remember, we are a generation that knows drugs. From about 1967 until John Belushi died, we created a way of life based almost entirely on drugs. And we can do it again. Except this time, instead of us trying to figure out how to pay for the fun by selling each other nickel bags of pot, you the taxpayer will be picking up the tab. And did I mention that we'll expect to be airlifted to the Mayo Clinic every time we have an ache or a pain? Nothing smaller than a Gulfstream G-3, please.

So just give us all the money in the federal, state, and local budget. Forget spending on the military, education, and infrastructure. What with Iraq, falling SAT scores, and that bridge collapse in Minneapolis, it's not like the military, education, and infrastructure are doing very well anyway. Besides, you don't have a choice. We are 80 million strong. That's a number equal to almost two-thirds of the registered voters in the United States. Do what we say or we will ballot you into a socio-economic condition that will make North Korea look like the clubhouse at Pebble Beach. . .

. . . Our generation is going to do what our generation has always done best. We're going to shape the American social fabric to our will and make the entire nation conform to our ideals, judgments, and tastes. . .

We're going to make all of you old like we are--old and dumpy and querulous and fuddled. We're achieving it already. Look at the hip young men walking around in their high-water pants, wearing stupid bowling shirts buttoned up to the collar. A bunch of 28-year-olds are going to Starbucks dressed as their grandpas. And what about teenage droopy drawers? That's gramps's other fashion-forward look, perfect for a weekend of crab grass killing and mulching the hydrangeas. Great big cushy, ugly sneakers--be they ever so expensive or young-athlete-endorsed--are nothing but the dread "comfortable shoes" that have been worn by the geriatric for eons.

We have rendered mere school children as dependent upon Ritalin as we are upon Lipitor and Levitra. And watch those kids go out and play. They can't so much as hop on a bike without being swathed in helmets, knee pads, shin guards, and elbow cushions. It's like seeing John Kerry skateboard. . .

Traffic jams are everywhere, but it's not because of too many cars or too few highway lanes. It's just slow driving in the famous old-age mode and with on-board navigation systems to provide someone to have a grumpy argument with even when you're alone.

What else do oldsters do besides drive slowly? They watch TV. Flip through the cable channels and compare what you see to what was seen 50 years ago: I Love Lucy, The Honeymooners, Burns and Allen. When it comes to fuddled, is not the whole entertainment industry drooling in its second childhood?

[GL]

A few years ago, one of the baby boomer celebrities, (I forget which one) was on Larry King extolling the accomplishments of the Baby Boom generation, declaring it the most important generation in American, perhaps even world history. As, I am ashamed to admit, a member of that generation, I started yelling at the TV, saying what about our parents, who endured the Great Depression and won THE WAR (not, just any war, mind you, but the war that required no other designation other than THE WAR), who then came home, continued their sacrifice, gave us life, fought another war in Korea along with their younger brothers, who then gave birth to the Civil Rights movement which ended the stain of legal segregation (though, have you noticed that Baby Boomers now take credit for the work of Martin Luther King, Jr., Ralph Abernathy and Benjamin Hooks (Christians all, by the way). But those accomplishments pale (in the mind of Baby Boomers) to their "gifts": the sexual revolution (with its resulting skyrocketing bastard children (though that word is not PC and so has undergone at least a new term every decade), VD (I'm sorry, that is STD to Baby Boomers, including HIV and AIDS), abortion (I mean "choice"), pornography (ahem, free speech), child pornography (that is, "girl love"), pedastry (that is, "boy love"), same-sex relationships (that is, "gay"), embryo murder ("Embryonic Stem Cell research"), etc. Notice how we have not only changed our lifestyle (into a deathstyle) but sanitized the language to remove any hint of the age old condemnations of our vices. Oh yes, we are a far greater generation than any before us, including our hapless fathers and mothers, who we declared had ruined the world which we would save, when in fact they had saved the world which we are ruining.

[Judy Warner]

However, GL, that great generation did raise the spoiled baby boomers (with the help of the above-mentioned Dr. Spock). They defended America and western civilization with their bodies, but something was missing in their minds and souls that would have allowed them to pass on their heritage to their children and to defend it when it was challenged.

[DGP]

>>...something was missing in their minds and souls that would have allowed them to pass on their heritage to their children and to defend it when it was challenged.

I've heard this said before, but I've never heard it convincingly explained. What was missing? Are you sure they weren't simply undone by the invention of television?

[Juli]

We're going to make all of you old like we are--old and dumpy and querulous and fuddled. We're achieving it already. Look at the hip young men walking around in their high-water pants, wearing stupid bowling shirts buttoned up to the collar. A bunch of 28-year-olds are going to Starbucks dressed as their grandpas. And what about teenage droopy drawers?

This sounds like the irritable complaints when young women and girls started wearing longer skirts in the late 60s (midi, maxi - remember?). How dare we think that dowdy = hip?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>How dare we think that dowdy = hip?<<<

It actually went beyond dowdy into frumpy, if I recall correctly.

[W.E.D. Godbold]

And the colors were awful, just awful. (I have pictures of my mom and mother-in-law.)

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I've heard this said before, but I've never heard it convincingly explained. What was missing? Are you sure they weren't simply undone by the invention of television?<<<

I've actually given this a lot of thought, spurred from my reading of World War II veterans' memoirs as well as a number of oral history interviews I have conducted. What struck me was how many of these men, all of whom had grown up in the Depression and had served in the military in World War II, had very ambivalent attitudes towards authority. Their whole youth was an extended exercise in self-denial--first, the material self-denial that came with the poverty of the Depression, then the denial of individual autonomy that came when they were drafted or volunteered for military service. Above all, they were sick to death of what Paul Fussell characterized as "chickensh-t", the web of petty, arbitrary and mean-spirited regulation by which those in charge--whether New Deal bureaucrats or military officers--used to demonstrate their power and control over subordinates.

I believe that many of these men developed a passive-aggressive approach to authority while they were in the military--outward subordination, inward rebellion. Bitch, gripe and moan among one's peers, kowtow and obey to one's superiors. Upon entering the civilian world after the War, these men found vast new horizons of material wealth and personal expression opening to them, but many found themselves unable to break the old habit of subordination. They wanted to cut loose, but found themselves bound at every turn by a web of responsibilities and social expectations that made open rebellion impossible. And so they seethed inwardly, and vowed that THEIR kids would not have to put up with it.

So, consciously they indulged their children with all the luxuries that they themselves were denied in their childhood. And at the same time, they determined to protect their kids from the kind of arbitrary exercise of authority that they themselves so despised. At the subconcious level, these attitudes transferred from parents to children, despite contradictory admonitions to respect one's elders, obey teaches and policemen, and the like. Kids have big ears, and undoubtedly many things were dropped in private conversations not meant for little tykes. And, of course, there is the whole non-verbal range of communications--body language, facial expressions and so forth--which stripped away the mask of the grey conformist hiding the true feelings of the "Greatest Generation".

Of course, these things are self-corrective. The subordination (and dumb insolence) of the World War II generation begot the solipsism and radical individuality of the Baby Boomers, which in turn bred the self-indulgence and nihilism of Generation-X, but their kids now look for order, structure, boundaries and authority emboidied in traditional institutions. What goes around comes around. Never trust anyone under thirty, the perfect motto for a generation of would-be rock stars in rocking chairs.

By the way, for a variety of reasons, I think Brokaw's designation of the World War II vets as "the Greatest Generation" is way off base, and a product of Brokaw's own guilty conscience, but that's another story.

[Ethan C.]

>>By the way, for a variety of reasons, I think Brokaw's designation of the World War II vets as "the Greatest Generation" is way off base, and a product of Brokaw's own guilty conscience, but that's another story.<<

Pretty fair. I'd say the generation of the Founding Fathers was pretty great, and the generation of the Civil War was no slouch, either. And I'm sure we could go farther back to find some even greater generations here and there.

And I think you're on to something about passive-aggressive resentment in the WWII generation. For a member of such a supposedly straight-laced group, it's amazing how many of my Grandpa's war stories are about breaking rules and stealing stuff. Which isn't to say they they weren't heroes, or that I don't prefer their culture to the current stuff. But there's always a seed, it seems, of what comes after.

[GL]

My point, however, is not that the WWII generation was "the greatest generation," but that the baby boomer suffer from an unbelievable degree of hubris. We were going to fix all that our fathers and their fathers before them back to the Adam had screwed up and now look at what a wonderful world we have created. And many aging baby boomers live under the delusion that we have. It is all horse s**t.

Whatever our parents failings, and they had many, they actually did things that did make the world a better place: defeated Nazism, Fascism, and Imperial Japan, stopped the communist advance on the Korean peninsula, ended legal segregation, built a strong, growing economy, and, via Ronald Reagan, defeated the Soviet Union. Not bad.

All the good we baby boomers have done was simply to build on the capital we inherited from our parents' generation's efforts. I would agree, however, that our parents have some blame related to the harm we have done, but it was still we who did the harm.

[Judy Warner]

Stuart, I think that's the best explanation I've ever heard. Among the people I knew growing up, many of them communists and other varieties of radicals, the parents were already rebellious and anti-authority in their own minds, although the ones in the Communist Party had to be submissive to that authority. (In fact, my mother got kicked out of the Party for not submitting.) They transmitted the rebelliousness directly to their children, without subtlety. This put the kids in a bind, only they haven't realized it yet. Almost all of them (except me and David Horowitz and Ron Radosh and a few others) pretty much blindly followed their parents, thinking they were really rebellious. Of course the young people who are really rebelling against authority today are the Christians, the conservatives, and others who get mauled by their politically correct elders and their pseudo-rebellious peers in schools and colleges. But then again, I suppose they're not really rebelling; they are simply affirming their allegiance to higher principle or higher powers.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>For a member of such a supposedly straight-laced group, it's amazing how many of my Grandpa's war stories are about breaking rules and stealing stuff.<<<

Not to mention sleeping around. It is estimated that the typical GI overseas had an average of four different sexual partners. Of course, some guys were straight-laced and others were pretty promiscuous, but most were just lonely, desperately aware of their own mortality, and looking for comfort where they could find it.

Of course, back home women were finding out that they could also do their patriot duty lying flat on their backs, and many did. Contrary to popular myth, our grandparents were as randy as any other generation. In his memoir "Flights of Passage", Marine aviator Samuel Hynes wrote about his duty censoring the mail of the enlisted men. One of his fellow officers, a straight-arrow college man, took offense at the erotic tone of some of the enlisted men's letters to their wives and girlfriends. He brought one in to try get him to "elevate" the tone of his missives. "You can't talk to a woman that way", the officer told the man. The man, probably already offended that this pecksniff was reading his personal mail, barked back, "She's my wife, and if I want to tell her how much I want to ____ her, that's my business, not yours".

At about the same time, a group of submarine officers' wives at New London were circulating a raunchy ditty about how much they missed their husbands.

They were more complex people than Ozzie and Harriet let on.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>My point, however, is not that the WWII generation was "the greatest generation," but that the baby boomer suffer from an unbelievable degree of hubris.<<<

No argument here. Of course, they also ALLOWED all those bad things to happen out of their own ignorance, sloth or wishful thinking. People forget that the same guys who invaded Guadalcanal and stormed Omaha Beach were writing the grafitto OHIO on the sides of latreens back in the summer of 1941. It stood for "Over the Hill in October"--a reference to the call to desert the Army if the draft wasn't suspended by that date.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>In fact, my mother got kicked out of the Party for not submitting.<<<

The acorn doesn't fall far from the oak, does it?

>>>But then again, I suppose they're not really rebelling; they are simply affirming their allegiance to higher principle or higher powers.<<<

Or they're trying to tick off their parents. I settle for that.

[Tim]

>>>I've heard this said before, but I've never heard it convincingly explained. What was missing?<<<

I've been thinking about this also, particularly in light of what looks like to me in the story of the Bible the central problem of one generation's inability to pass along devotion to God to following generations (particulary when those following generations are brought up "rich," or privileged).

Stuart, I understand your thoughts that "they determined to protect their kids from the kind of arbitrary exercise of authority that they themselves so despised," (my father would be a text case probably - ASTP student thrown into the Battle of the Bulge as a combat engineer; he pissed off his superiors and was sent behind lines to "get rid of him" - last five guys had died in this recon position). But part of me thinks the WWII generation's failure to raise God-fearing kids was due also to their not being up to the task of defending God-fearing in a truly brand new world (of TV, moon shots, the pill, civil rights, so many changes from the ways of old). I distinctly remember my mother shrinking in her defense of the old ways ... "why do you kids need sex, drugs, and rock and roll? Why we're happier than you without them!" ... when I would say, "it was good for you, white, middle class in Hollywood, but what about the folks in the back of the bus, without voting rights, etc.?" The righteousness of some of "the kids" thoughts seemed to disarm or weaken their self-assurance and that was all the kids needed to embrace notions of "liberation" from any quarter. Once the dam of parental authority was broken, the flood could commence.

And maybe, to some extent, they were bought off by the shiny new product lifestyle which, unconsciously, brought doubts about the authority of previous ways. It's interesting that their defense of the old days/ways (as written about so often in Brokaw's book) seems to have come out most strongly in their twilight years - perhaps an attempt to recapture authority?.

I don't know, but it's interesting and I believe critical to look at and hopefully understand.

And Stuart, I'd be interested further in your reservations with "Greatest Generation," tagline. What specifically "turns you off" to it?

[Judy Warner]

Actually, there were a lot of people during the 1960s who were *not* rebellious, though they don't get written about much. The ones who went to Vietnam and thought they'd done their duty and their government had let them down. The ones who got married and had children and thought the country was going nuts when their kids had to get bused across the city to achieve racial balance. Their kids got older too, and are probably among those who are now standing up for their principles which they inherited from their parents and didn't rebel against. In addition to all the colorful varieties of Americans that the media like to feature, there's a normal strain that seems to endure through the generations.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>"why do you kids need sex, drugs, and rock and roll? Why we're happier than you without them!"<<<

The had sex, booze and big bands. Look at it this way, at least you had ONE thing in common.

>>>I would say, "it was good for you, white, middle class in Hollywood, but what about the folks in the back of the bus, without voting rights, etc.?" <<<

Of course, all the real progress was made in the 1950s and early 60s. By the time the Boomers came of age around 1968 or so, there was nothing left to do except have a decade-long temper tantrum.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>And Stuart, I'd be interested further in your reservations with "Greatest Generation," tagline. What specifically "turns you off" to it?<<<

Well, it's not so much that they were in any way worse than any other generation, just that they did not walk on water. And many of the problems they had to overcome were really of their own making. Most of them grew up during the 1930, "a low, dishonest decade", and they had to face the great challenge of the rise of totalitarianism. They failed. Too many of them were just not interested, felt it was someone else's problem, and hoped it would go away. Isolationism was a very popular position. And while relatively few Americans were attracted to Nazi ideology (although the Bund movement was a lot larger than you would think), far too many were seduced by the promises of socialism (if they were lucky) or communism (if they went whole-hog). Almost all were perfectly happy to buy into the moonshine being sold by Franklin Roosevelt through the New Deal (see Amity Schlaes new book "The Forgotten Man" for an examination of how the country was worse off in 1937 than it was in 1933).

They had to be dragged into World War II kicking and screaming. Most of those who served did not see combat--there were something like ten men in the rear supporting each one on the front lines--and of those who did, most were interested in doing just enough to get by and to survive with all parts intact. They were not particularly good or enthusastic soldiers for the most part, and relied very heavily on their materiel superiority to overcome the enemy. If the positions had been reversed, the Germans would have eaten our lunch. They did not do particularly well in adversity, and when the war in Europe stalemated in the fall and winter of 1944, there were tens of thousands of desertions, to say nothing of self-inflicted wounds..

On the homefront, it wasn't all scrap drives and Rosie the Riveter. For most of the people back in the U.S., the War was the best time of their lives. They had jobs and money in their pockets, and rationing wasn't much of an impediment to having a good time--if you knew who to see. Patriotism was loud and overt, but there was a good deal of goldbricking, profiteering and exploitation of the situation. Some people may know that John L. Lewis and the United Mine Workers staged several strikes during the war. Most don't know that there were hundreds of other work slowdowns and wildcat strikes involving such critical industries as aircraft, steelworking, shipbuilding and transportation. Plans were drawn up by the War Department for taking over the railroads and mines, among other industries, if the situation did not improve. Most of these strikes and job actions involved trivial work rule disputes, as well as attempts to squeeze a little more money out of the government for their time and effort.

Soliders returning from combat--either on leave and furlough, or because of wounds--found the home front strangely disengaged from the reality of the war, and most were deeply disturbed or even disgusted by the attitudes expressed by the civilians, which is why they seldom talked about the war with them.

For all that, by the spring of 1945, the country was both war weary and nearly broke. Bond sales had slipped tremendously, and without them, the country could not pay its bills. That was one reason for the huge bond drive involving the surviving Marines from the flag-raising on Mt.Surobachi. It is good that the war ended when it did, as it did, because America was losing its stomach for further fighting.

Which explains why, when the shooting stopped, the first thing everybody wanted to do was get out of uniform and forget about the rest of the world. The Greatest Generation was extremely slow off the mark to recognize the threat posed by the USSR, was opposed to the Marshall Plan, and really did not want to defend Korea. Again, it had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, to meet the challanges the world laid out for it. And they resented every last minute of it. The Korean War was as unpopular as Vietnam (but the press was still on our side for that one), as was the draft. They were disengaged from the ideological struggle and constantly ready to give it up. To some extent, only the consensus among the governing elite held their noses to the grindstone--until the end of the Vietnam War, when, finally ready to retire, they turned the whole thing over to their kids, whom they had done nothing to prepare for the responsibilities of global governance.

[DGP]

Thank you Mr. Koehl, Ethan, Judy, Tim. These remarks are helpful to me. A few first reactions:

(1) You're probably more precise when you describe the Boomers' parents as passive-aggressive than as parents wanting to protect their children from abusive authority. Resentment is a powerful and formative mood.

(2) They probably also derived a great deal of pride from being able to dispense luxuries to their children.

(3) The order-seeking reaction of younger folks still embeds the suspicion and anti-authoritianism of the preceding generations. It is definitely not simply a return to undifferentiated traditionalism (if such a thing ever existed).

(4) I'm inclined to think the posture of the "Greatest Generation" is only one element of a bigger storm. I'm pretty sure the invention of the television is also a part of it, or rather the ease with which TV allows the media to form the masses in a non-literate manner.

[Tim]

>>>Well, it's not so much that they were in any way worse than any other generation, just that they did not walk on water.<<<

Agreed.

RE being dragged into the war, was that the "Greatest Generation" or their parents? My parents, born 1922 and 1924 both volunteered for service (Mom went to the WAVE recruiters office on her 20th birthday - the first day she was eligible for service - ended up teaching sailors to shoot 20mm anti-aircraft guns. It took a while for Dad to get in; tried the Navy but he wore glasses. Army finally took him); so amongst them, there was enthusiasm (don't think they had much to do with appeasement - they were still in grade/high school). RE the "low, dishonest decade" they both reminisced that although strapped (Mom said three families lived in their house in the thirties for necessity) they thought they had fantastic childhoods going here, there, wherever without worry. My 85 year old Godmother talks about nothing else when I call her up. Perhaps they, as kids, were shielded from the ugliness of the times, but there seems to have been enough community strength (virtue?) remaining to provide "wholesome" childhoods.

Guess my comment/question would go back to how they responded to the challenges of the 60's and 70's - they seemed to have "punted."

Re Judy's "there were a lot of people during the 1960s who were *not* rebellious" and "there's a normal strain that seems to endure through the generations": indeed, there is, at least to date in Judeo-Christian history, a remnant that carries on "the old ways". Guess I'd ask: what is God up to with this long process of "boom and bust"? Is it winnowing? And is there a time when a generation, in success, will be able to hand off successfully devotion to God to their privileged children? It seems obvious that man by his nature (fallen) is not up to the task. So .... ?

[Bill R]

Fascinating discussion. But I wonder if another big reason for the Boomer problem is just the fact that so many fine men died in the War. Stuart, I’m curious if this is a recurring problem throughout history: the generation following a great conflict in which so many of the bravest died finds itself somewhat dysfunctional or self-indulgent. Didn’t we see this in the generation between the World Wars as well? Those soldiers who survive a conflict may feel a bit guilt about their own survival (we see this phenomenon frequently among the survivors of any catastrophe), and bury their “guilt” in self-indulgence, which indulgence in turn inspires a great deal of disgust in the following (i.e., the Boomer) generation.

[Tim]

>>>(4) I'm inclined to think the posture of the "Greatest Generation" is only one element of a bigger storm. I'm pretty sure the invention of the television is also a part of it, or rather the ease with which TV allows the media to form the masses in a non-literate manner.<<<

DGP, Robert Putnam (Bowling Alone - The Collapse and Revival of American Community), identifies TV, women going into the workplace, and generational differences as the three biggest factors of the community weaknesses we've inherited. The generational difference is simply that the "greatest generation" was much more of a service/volunteer generation than those following - and I think, Stuart, that this is where Brokaw has pointed to justify the "Greatest" in front of his parent's generation. This generation, via the "all hands are needed" nature of the depression and the "were all in this together" (even though, as Stuart says, they all weren't) nature of the War was inculcated with a community service ethic. I can vouch for their volunteer spirit: both my parents were active volunteers up to their deathbeds.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>RE being dragged into the war, was that the "Greatest Generation" or their parents? <<<

The average age of the World War II draftee was 26 (Vietnam was an anomaly--we needed relatively few men, so we seldom selected men outside of their year), so they were born between 1915 and 1917. When Hitler came to power, they would have been 16-18 years of age; by the time of the Rheinland, 18-20; and by the time of the Munich sellout, 21-23. They had a say in which way the country would go. As late as early 1941, there was no consensus on the need to intervene in World War II.

[Judy Warner]

I've never heard before that my parents' generation was a service/volunteer generation. I have heard a lot about today's young people being big on volunteering, and they have also been compared to the WWII generation in somebody's schema of generations, so putting those things together I guess that means somebody thinks they were.

I don't recall things being that way, though, except among some of the Jews I knew, and my mother, who could hardly avoid her fate of being an active volunteer, being both a communist and the daughter of a Lutheran minister. (I know, I have the weirdest family background you ever saw.) Most men were busy working, while the women were taking care of their houses and children or living Betty Friedan-style lives of quiet desperation (or so they later claimed).

[Tim]

Wikipedia's got the greatest generation as 'tween 1911 and 1924. I don't know Stuart, I don't know many late teens, early 20 somethings who've got much real say in the way the country goes - they don't, despite their verbal self-assuredness, vote much and they certainly don't have much sway powerwise in institutions, etc. I've been thinking lately thank goodness they don't vote; it's better to leave ruling up to those who are deeply committed/vested in a community, e.g., property owners, businessmen, families, etc." It is almost like there is a deep wisdom that tells them (those in the "exploring" mode of their life) "Don't vote!. Unfortunately, they do tend to be the ones who respond the best to advertising and as such, their whims and wants seem to be what all of us get to watch and listen to on the TV and airwaves, giving us the impression that they are the do all and end all. Yikes.

[Michael]

>> I have heard a lot about today's young people being big on volunteering<<

Belief none of what you hear, and only half of what you see.

[Tim]

>>>I've never heard before that my parents' generation was a service/volunteer generation. I have heard a lot about today's young people being big on volunteering, and they have also been compared to the WWII generation in somebody's schema of generations, so putting those things together I guess that means somebody thinks they were.<<<

Judy and others: I cannot recommend more highly Putnam's book, Bowling Alone, for the best look at a global picture of community in America. His prescriptions for what ails us are not taken too seriously but his description of the ailments have been held up fairly across the board.

[Tim]

RE the generations coming up being more volunteer oriented: there is evidence that its true (and beyond just graduation requirements). And it is also true that they are more interested in tradition, something they never got from their groovy parents. Peter Gomes book, The Good Life, is a good one to read about this.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Stuart, I’m curious if this is a recurring problem throughout history: the generation following a great conflict in which so many of the bravest died finds itself somewhat dysfunctional or self-indulgent.<<<

Certainly true of Britain and France after World War I. In fact, Europe still hasn't gotten over World War I (psychologically). Germany and Russia reacted somewhat differently, but yes, they were dysfunctional as well.

But this wasn't the case after the Napoleonic Wars, or even the Thirty Years War. I think it's too contingent to make a general rule.

For the U.S. in World War II, one has to remember that most of the casualties were combat infantrymen, and that these were drawn from the bottom two quintiles of the Army's aptitude test results. On the other hand, we tended to shunt the top quintile into aviation, and there we lost perhaps up to 25% of all the men who flew in combat. Corelli Barnett looked at the effects of the huge losses of the RAF in World War II and concluded that Britain suffered from the loss of talent in the post-war period, but he didn't look at the moral or psychological effects, so I don't think anyone has tried to provide an answer to this question in the way it has been posed.

[Michael]

>>Wikipedia's got the greatest generation as 'tween 1911 and 1924. I don't know Stuart, I don't know many late teens, early 20 somethings who've got much real say in the way the country goes - they don't, despite their verbal self-assuredness, vote much and they certainly don't have much sway powerwise in institutions, etc. I've been thinking lately thank goodness they don't vote; it's better to leave ruling up to those who are deeply committed/vested in a community, e.g., property owners, businessmen, families, etc." It is almost like there is a deep wisdom that tells them (those in the "exploring" mode of their life) "Don't vote!. Unfortunately, they do tend to be the ones who respond the best to advertising and as such, their whims and wants seem to be what all of us get to watch and listen to on the TV and airwaves, giving us the impression that they are the do all and end all. Yikes.<<

Right you are re: WWII, as the the Twenty-sixth Amendment wasn't (foolishly) ratified until the 1970's; no voting power, no influence on political careerism.

However, if we're talking 1911-1924, consider that by the time the Depression hit the hardest (1933), the early segment of that group could vote, and when the war started looking inevitable in '38 and '39, you had tacked on greater than half of that range as voting age, yet the nation remaind staunchly isolationist until Pearl Harbor. I favor Stuart's interpretation.

Also, seeing what a mess the isolationist mentality got us into with World War II, as well as the Boomer prerogative to spread American "liberation" like a cancer (c.f. the election Reagan), maybe you should want more young people to vote. In the former case, it's ironic because they "sought no wider war" (yes, even before the song was written), but they weren't willing to contain the war until it was too late. In the latter, we brought the slow simmer of Islam's thousand-year war with the West to a full boil. War was coming, for sure, but even with the religion's inherent bloodlust (or just lust in general), I still think it's obvious that "Americanism" helped it along a bit faster.

Which, I suppose, is also ironic, because here I am saying we may have contained it, and that was the same mistake the World War I babies made with Hitler...

[Judy Warner]

I should have added that much of this activity in young people is the result of volunteer requirements in some school systems. The state of Maryland requires 60 volunteer hours to graduate. It has also become something that colleges look for, so students aiming at competitive colleges rack up volunteer credentials like mad. I had to review some state scholarship applications a few years ago and I was amazed (appalled, actually) at how much time these kids spent on their frantic activities accumulating 4-H badges and founding their organizations for the rescue of ailing raccoons or awareness of fashionable diseases or recycling clubs and the like. And how not one of them mentioned ever reading a book.

[Tim]

>>>combat infantrymen, and that these were drawn from the bottom two quintiles of the Army's aptitude test results.<<<

Ai Carumba, no wonder my dad got in trouble amongst the front line troops; ASTP'ers (Advanced Student Training Program) were what, the top 5% Stuart?

Re losing too many good men: our losses were low in comparison with WWI Brits and French. I don't think this factor was determinant.

[Michael]

>>RE the generations coming up being more volunteer oriented: there is evidence that its true (and beyond just graduation requirements). And it is also true that they are more interested in tradition, something they never got from their groovy parents. Peter Gomes book, The Good Life, is a good one to read about this.<<

In regards to volunteerism: as a "young person," no, it isn't. At least not as a matter of true benevolence, and certainly not as a majority.

As for "tradition," I've read Carroll's The New Faithful, and it's encouraging as a movement, but I'm not inclined to believe it's borne out of fealty. I really think kids are just disillusioned with or are trying to piss off their parents. When my generation is done proving that even we are human and fallible, the pendulum will swing back.

[Tim]

>>>In regards to volunteerism: as a "young person," no, it isn't. At least not as a matter of true benevolence, and certainly not as a majority.<<<

Indeed, I suspect that most of depression era kids didn't want to help out and that a lot (most?) servicemen didn't volunteer out of benevolence, but it does seem they did come out of the experiences with a teamwork ethic, if you will.

Perhaps this leads back to Stuart's notion of a repressed anti-authortarianism? If the kids are "made" to be benevolent in action (hoping in spirit too) it can backfire and turn them into, in the case of the greatest generation, covert anti-authoritarians? So, how do you convince the young to *want* to be benevolent? I think I feel my parents "punting" instinct on this one; in today's arena, it seems no matter what the elders deem best, it will be wrong. So it's best to just let them figure it out on their own. And tradition is lost. At least for a little while?

This train of thought reminds of M. Scott Peck's stages of spiritual development:

* Stage I is chaotic, disordered, and reckless. Very young children are in Stage I. They tend to defy and disobey, and are unwilling to accept a will greater than their own. Many criminals are people who have never grown out of Stage I.
* Stage II is the stage at which a person has blind faith. Once children learn to obey their parents, they reach Stage II. Many so-called religious people are essentially Stage II people, in the sense that they have blind faith in God, and do not question His existence. With blind faith comes humility and a willingness to obey and serve. The majority of good law-abiding citizens never move out of Stage II.
* Stage III is the stage of scientific skepticism and inquisitivity. A Stage III person does not accept things on faith but only accepts them if convinced logically. Many people working in scientific and technological research are in Stage III.
* Stage IV is the stage where an individual starts enjoying the mystery and beauty of nature. While retaining skepticism, he starts perceiving grand patterns in nature. His religiousness and spirituality differ significantly from that of a Stage II person, in the sense that he does not accept things through blind faith but does so because of genuine belief. Stage IV people are labelled as mystics.

Scott Peck argues that while transitions from Stage I to Stage II are sharp, transitions from Stage III to Stage IV are gradual. Nonetheless, these changes are very noticeable and mark a significant difference in the personality of the individual.

I know that Peck's got some kooky notions, but something about this analysis makes sense to me.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Ai Carumba, no wonder my dad got in trouble amongst the front line troops; ASTP'ers (Advanced Student Training Program) were what, the top 5% Stuart?<<<

ASTP were promised the opportunity to finish college and then go into a technical service. However, by September 1944, we were flat out of infantrymen, and began converting anyone who could hold a rifle into one. Someone noticed the Luftwaffe wasn't much in business anymore, so a lot of anti-aircraft artillerymen got turned into grunts, as did ASTPs, clerks, cooks and assorted REMFs.

[Judy Warner]

M. Scott Peck is kind of like Maslow, except for being nominally religious. They both think anyone who has real faith is kind of primitive. Only skeptics are intellectually sophisticated. Their views typify to the extreme provincialism that has been the curse of the intellectuals for many decades.

[Tim]

>>>Their views typify to the extreme provincialism that has been the curse of the intellectuals for many decades.<<<

Agreed, but that does not mean some of their notions can be truthful, what?

>>>They both think anyone who has real faith is kind of primitive.<<<

Kind of "Stage II"? I've picked up on their provincialism also, but per the discussion here, could Stuart's repressed anti-authoritarianism of the greatest generation be evidence of Stage II thinking, where people believe out of a faith that has been authoritatively put on them? And does the corrective come, after saying, as in Stage III, "the hell with it!" and going off on navel gazing exercises, when one comes round to Stage IV and *chooses*, on one's own, to believe? I guess I'd ask, what are the alternatives to this cycle?

[Judy Warner]

Tim, this is always the hope of those who watch the decay of structure and authority, that there is some kind of cycle that will bring things back. Unfortunately, the people who go through these supposed stages end up with a pretty pale form of religion. They don't think of themselves as mystics, but they would define themselves as "spiritual" rather than religious. Oneness with the world, and all that. Actually, it also sounds like the stages of a stoned-out hippie. Or maybe the Washington Post's religion web page or blog or something, On Faith, described as "A conversation on religion with Jon Meacham and Sally Quinn," which I just discovered yesterday. (I was going to make fun of it until I saw it has very good post by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, so I'll refrain.)

[Bill R]

"For the U.S. in World War II, one has to remember that most of the casualties were combat infantrymen, and that these were drawn from the bottom two quintiles of the Army's aptitude test results." - Stuart Koehl

Yes, but I was referring to courage, to virtue, and not necessarily to intelligence. Indeed it may be part of the problem that were were "left" with those who were only to adept at testing well for intelligence. ;-)

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Yes, but I was referring to courage, to virtue, and not necessarily to intelligence. Indeed it may be part of the problem that were were "left" with those who were only to adept at testing well for intelligence. ;-)<<<

I could go into that as well, but there is no real correlation between death in battle as an infantryman, and either valor or virtue. Basically, after a certain time, survival is a matter of dumb luck, with the good, the bad and the ugly all equally at risk. The artillery shell does not discriminate between the good soldier and the bad, the good man and the bad. It nails you whether you have taken every possible precaution, or whether you are utterly careless. The odds of becoming a casualty were greater than 100% for the combat infantryman. I have mentioned that several divisions in the ETO went through their total complement of infantrymen several times over (which does not mean that there were no survivors from among the original complement of riflemen, only that these few really did beat the odds.

As regards virtue, consider that it was a conscript army. We didn't care what kind of a man you were (provided you liked girls, of course) as long as you could meet the physical requirements of the job and the (admittedly) low mental requirements. As the war went on, they became even less picky. So if they selected you to be an infantryman, unless you were in an elite unit like the paratroopers or Rangers, you didn't volunteer to be there. And you probably would have done anything to go somewhere else, especially once you did the math and figured out that you weren't coming out whole. That's where you get the concept of the "Million Dollar Wound"--one bad enough to ship you stateside (for the duration, one hoped!), without permanently disfiguring or incapacitating you. A nice clean wound through the buttocks was considered ideal. And guys who had been in combat, who had demonstrated their bravery, prayed for that Million Dollar Wound, and if and when they got it, were carried down to the Battalion Aid Station with a huge grin and a cheery dispostion. As the guards in Stalag XVII would say, "Fur you der var ist ofer".

[DGP]

>>Basically, after a certain time, survival is a matter of dumb luck, with the good, the bad and the ugly all equally at risk.

From down below, it often appears that the competence of one's officers might also have something to do with survival.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>From down below, it often appears that the competence of one's officers might also have something to do with survival.<<<

As Bernard Cornwell's Captain Richard Sharpe says, there are "killin' officers and murderin' officers". Soldiers know the difference, and a bad lieutenant or captain can get you into an untenable situation. Which is why incompetents don't live long on the battlefield (amazing how many enemy snipers manage to infiltrate our positions and shoot our officers in the back). But, even taking incompetence into consideration, survival on the battlefield can be accounted mainly a matter of luck. You can have the worst possible officer, and still dodge the bullet. Your lieutenant may be the second coming of Alexander the Great, but stand in the wrong place at the wrong time, and they'll send what's left of you home in a shoebox.

[Bobby Winters]

Stuart,
My Uncle (who was drafted along with my father into WWII at age 25) says that 25-year-olds aren't good soldiers. The 16-year-olds are "the real killers" according to him. I reminded of all this by the discussion of the replacement corp. My Uncle once went through relatively Herculean measures to get back to his outfit after a hospital stay in order to avoid the replacement core. It makes interesting reading; I edited his memoirs.