# Generational Blind Spots



## Theoretical (Dec 26, 2006)

It is generally described as that the baby boomer generation's blind spots are in an over-emphasis on entertainment and visual aids, etc... Hence the insane popularity of Osteen, Warren, and Billy Graham as the Peales and Fosdicks of that generation.

What about the Generation X and Y's blind spots? What should those of us in this generation look out for as we begin raising our children. I really worry about what blind spots my generation (and myself) won't even be noticing as we raise our kids (present and future)?


----------



## Pilgrim (Dec 26, 2006)

trevorjohnson said:


> My generation is so into short term fixes and tolerance that two missiological trends have shown up which are dangerous:
> 
> (1) *The short term mission trip emphasis of today's missions programs.* Many times it makes the church into religious tourists and spends a lot of money for a short trip instead of long term witness among a lived-with people.
> 
> ...




These are good observations, Trevor.


----------



## bookslover (Dec 26, 2006)

Theoretical said:


> It is generally described as that the baby boomer generation's blind spots are in an over-emphasis on entertainment and visual aids, etc... Hence the insane popularity of Osteen, Warren, and Billy Graham as the Peales and Fosdicks of that generation.
> 
> What about the Generation X and Y's blind spots? What should those of us in this generation look out for as we begin raising our children. I really worry about what blind spots my generation (and myself) won't even be noticing as we raise our kids (present and future)?



I think it's unfair to compare Billy Graham with Peale and Fosdick. Graham may have had his problems with some of his theology, but Peale and Fosdick were flat-out liberals who had no use for either the true gospel or conservative theology. Graham, for all his faults and his broad evangelicalism, at least knows what the gospel is and tried to preach it.


----------



## Theoretical (Dec 26, 2006)

bookslover said:


> I think it's unfair to compare Billy Graham with Peale and Fosdick. Graham may have had his problems with some of his theology, but Peale and Fosdick were flat-out liberals who had no use for either the true gospel or conservative theology. Graham, for all his faults and his broad evangelicalism, at least knows what the gospel is and tried to preach it.


The reason I lump Graham in there is that evangelicals following Graham's lead have been made vulnerable to Osteen and Warren, precisely due to his extraordinary ecumenism with both liberals and Catholics. I believe Evangelicals and Catholics Together would not have happened were it not for the profound influence of Graham in particular in working with Catholicism. He more than most established bonds between Catholics and Evangelicals that were unthinkable even a generation previously, and it is this soft-pedaling and liberalising (in a Romish way) that opens the door for the dumbed-down theology of the mega-churches. Also Graham's methodology stemming from theology led to so much decisionism that there are masses of people who've been exposed to his teachings who are under damnation and they do not know it. 

Billy Graham may be well-meaning, but his theology and leadership of the evangelical movement has been exceedingly catastrophic to evangelicalism. This dumbing-down and simplifying he employed and encouraged has dominated an entire pair of generations' ideas of proper evangelism, and we really see that in the modern church's tendency to greatly neglect genuine discipleship, not to mention a continued drastic dilution of doctrine into the mire of pragmatism.


----------



## bookslover (Dec 26, 2006)

Theoretical said:


> The reason I lump Graham in there is that evangelicals following Graham's lead have been made vulnerable to Osteen and Warren, precisely due to his extraordinary ecumenism with both liberals and Catholics. I believe Evangelicals and Catholics Together would not have happened were it not for the profound influence of Graham in particular in working with Catholicism. He more than most established bonds between Catholics and Evangelicals that were unthinkable even a generation previously, and it is this soft-pedaling and liberalising (in a Romish way) that opens the door for the dumbed-down theology of the mega-churches. Also Graham's methodology stemming from theology led to so much decisionism that there are masses of people who've been exposed to his teachings who are under damnation and they do not know it.
> 
> Billy Graham may be well-meaning, but his theology and leadership of the evangelical movement has been exceedingly catastrophic to evangelicalism. This dumbing-down and simplifying he employed and encouraged has dominated an entire pair of generations' ideas of proper evangelism, and we really see that in the modern church's tendency to greatly neglect genuine discipleship, not to mention a continued drastic dilution of doctrine into the mire of pragmatism.




I must admit, you do have a point. I had heard, though, that his original reason for having liberal types up on the platform with him during his crusades was to disarm them, so to speak. After Graham left town, they couldn't very well denounce him - people would have said, "Well, what were you doing up there with him, then?"


----------

