by Bob Whitesel D.Min., Ph.D., 12/17/15.
Once a student asked me if we should refer strictly to “different preferences” or “styles” of worship, rather than “generational preferences” for worship. His rationale was that he enjoyed Gen. X worship, but he was a Boomer. Designating it Gen. X-style worship made him feel it was too generationally specific. Instead he said, “Why can’t we just say we offer differing styles?”
This is a good point. But, it may be counterproductive for researchers and academics to avoid generational designations (though I would encourage you to publicly speak of styles – e.g. traditional, classic, modern, postmodern, emerging, organic, etc. when publicizing these various styles). However, for our research discussions the generational designations are important for clarity, specificity and generative explanations. Let me elaborate on this.
We Use Labels Carefully, To Describe Cultures
Generational predilections and their resultant designations provide a rubric for understanding cultures. It is about cultures, but these cultures are largely generationally driven (due to common experiences – see Gary McIntosh’s exploration of this in “Four Generations” or Margaret Mead’s “Culture and Commitment”). Thus generational descriptors are important sociological and anthropological designations that are not exclusive, but valuable for communication. If we follow the logic of rejecting generational descriptors and instead referring to a strategy of “offering as many styles as possible,” we then loose the emphasis upon the genesis of those styles – shared temporal experiences (the Depression, Vietnam War, Gulf War, computers, Internet age, etc. etc.).
Thus, I want to advocate that as researchers and strategists we keep the generational designations when working with leaders, for it reminds us the genesis is cultural. And, it also reminds us that though we may relate to these cultures (as I think I do with Millennials), we who are of a different age (I am a Boomer) are never truly part of it because we have not experienced the same temporal experiences. Note how in my “Inside the Organic Church” book I was unintentionally but constantly reminded that I was an outsider by these Gen. X congregations.
Etic or Emic? Why It is Important to Understand the Difference.
There actually is a name for this tension in missiology. If you are truly part of a culture you have an emic relationship with it. And if you are an outsider to a culture (such as a missionary), you may study it, analyze it, adopt it and even enjoy it … but you are never truly native to it, and thus you have an etic relationship with it. Thus, I have an etic relationship with Gen. X, even though I love their organic emphasis even more than my native Boomer church culture.