All churches are struggling to retain Millenials. Although it’s true that every generation has a higher rate of religious attrition than preceding generations, there is far less stigma to being unreligious now than ever before. If churches want to retain Millenials, more effort needs to go into understanding them, finding common ground, and presenting the gospel to them in ways that bring them closer to Christ’s teachings, not just under church authority. This is easier said that done.
Politicizing Jesus
Since the 1980s, churches have become more and more politicized. While liberals may be Christian, conservative messages often predominate in congregations. Neither liberal Jesus nor conservative Jesus gets it right, of course.
Liberals see Jesus as someone who fought for the rights of the underdogs of society [1], who would forgive freely [2], was not into materialism [3], and never lost his temper. Conservatives like to point out the incidents in which Jesus did lose his temper [4], insulted people [5] and supported capitalism [6].
In the April General Conference, E. Holland decried these caricatures of Jesus:
it is a characteristic of our age that if people want any gods at all, they want them to be gods who do not demand much, comfortable gods, smooth gods who not only don’t rock the boat but don’t even row it, gods who pat us on the head, make us giggle, then tell us to run along and pick marigolds.
Talk about man creating God in his own image! Sometimes—and this seems the greatest irony of all—these folks invoke the name of Jesus as one who was this kind of “comfortable” God. Really? He who said not only should we not break commandments, but we should not even think about breaking them. And if we do think about breaking them, we have already broken them in our heart. Does that sound like “comfortable” doctrine, easy on the ear and popular down at the village love-in? [7]
And what of those who just want to look at sin or touch it from a distance? Jesus said with a flash, if your eye offends you, pluck it out. If your hand offends you, cut it off. “I came not to [bring] peace, but a sword,” He warned those who thought He spoke only soothing platitudes. No wonder that, sermon after sermon, the local communities “pray[ed] him to depart out of their coasts.” No wonder, miracle after miracle, His power was attributed not to God but to the devil. It is obvious that the bumper sticker question “What would Jesus do?” will not always bring a popular response.
Problematically, given the political polarization that exists today, it’s easy to imagine both liberals and conservatives feeling that their worldview is the one bolstered by this description. Given that E. Holland warns against “comfortable” Gods, a closer reading should give both political camps pause. A liberal imagining a liberal Jesus is equally unrealistic and self-serving as a conservative imagining a conservative Jesus. Both of them fail to know Jesus and fail to recognize the shortcomings of their worldview and the ways in which they are too comfortable.
Will the real Jesus please stand up?
Neither group seems to remember a few fundamental things about Jesus.
First, he was in a powerless group. The Jews were not autonomous; they were under Roman rule. Very few Mormons today live in such circumstances. Most are from wealthy western countries where we can vote and enjoy basic freedoms and rights. Most of us live like kings compared to people a century ago. We fly through the air in comfort [8] to global destinations. We have flush toilets. We don’t know what starvation feels like. We mostly haven’t seen torture happen in the public square.
Second, even within that low status group, Jesus was lowly. His parenthood was suspect [9], and his earthly father’s job of “carpenter” is more accurately rendered “day laborer” [10]. These were not high class people in their society. Jesus didn’t have earthly power. Jews in general didn’t. They even had to get permission from their oppressors to kill him. When he lost his cool, it was usually in speaking truth to power, but within the underclass that was the Jewish community [11]. He wasn’t enforcing the rules of Judaism or policing modesty or telling women to stay in the kitchen. He was pointing out their hypocrisy and that their rules deliberately misapplied scripture and that their parentage wouldn’t save them. E. Holland was right that Jesus wasn’t all about making people comfortable!
Jesus vs. Dolores Umbridge
Here’s why the criticism of liberals we sometimes hear from the pulpit is misguided. Millenials are not “hippies” who even know what the “village love in” is. And their values are not as morally relativistic as that implies. They aren’t into free love and drug experimentation. There’s a big difference between a hippie and a hipster. Let’s not conflate the 1970s with the 2010s.
A recent article by Anthony Gierzynski at New Statesman describes the impact of J.K. Rowlings’ popular Harry Potter series on the development of personal values among Millenials. He says:
I found empirical support for the idea that the Harry Potter series influenced the political values and perspectives of the generation that came of age with these books. Reading the books correlated with greater levels of acceptance for out-groups, higher political tolerance, less predisposition to authoritarianism, greater support for equality, and greater opposition to the use of violence and torture.
The values described in the Harry Potter books are revealed through the actions of the main characters (who are students) as they interact with those of the older generation who are in various positions of authority: Dumbledore, Snape, Voldemort, and the reviled Dolores Umbridge. Of these characters, Dolores Umbridge is perhaps the most insidious, and if we aren’t careful, the best reason for the next generation to avoid religion altogether. Dolores Umbridge should be the cautionary tale that Jesus’ parables are. If we want to be made uncomfortable, we should be mortified to bear any resemblance to her individually or collectively.
Here’s what’s so bad about Dolores Umbridge, and consequently, what Millenials can’t stomach from their co-religionists at church:
- She’s controlling, meeting any challenge to her authority with more rules.
- She ignores what is unpleasant rather than preparing for it. She prefers not to deal with reality.
- She’s smugly self-righteous.
- She mistakes titles and hierarchy for competence.
- She has no real experience, and thus no judgment.
- She is petty and cruel toward those who threaten her worldview. She prefers to shoot the messenger or at least make him write “I must not tell lies” in his own blood hundreds of times.
- She expects and rewards tattling.
- Her clothing choices wouldn’t look out of place in Relief Society.
Those sound a lot like the criticisms of the church I hear [12]. In the case of Dolores Umbridge, she remains an obstacle to the very end. Rather than being an educator who facilitates growth, strength and goodness of character, she elevates the weak, the sycophants, and the manipulative. She virtually paves the way for the Dark Lord, which is sadly the last thing she wants to do. She’s really a caution for all organizations to face reality and not get too comfortable in their own view of things. Just as we are cautioned not to think “all is well in Zion,” Umbridge disastrously thinks all is well in the Ministry of Magic. She will do anything possible to preserve the status quo that no longer exists, including denying that the Dark Lord has returned even when confronted with direct evidence, preferring to punish those who point out the obvious.
By contrast, Dumbledore is kind but wary, makes allies among unpopular outcasts, and puts others in danger but stands by them in the fight. It seems to me that the values espoused by J.K. Rowling’s books are genuinely Christian. Maybe we could learn a thing or two from them, and in the process, understand the Millenials who are our future.
Discuss.
____________________________________________________________
[1] woman of Canaan notwithstanding, dog that she was.
[2] such as the woman taken in adultery – likely an apocryphal story according to biblical scholars, which is super disappointing since it’s everyone’s favorite story.
[3] made easier by having no material wealth to hoard.
[4] money changers in the temple – overthrowing capitalism rather literally, natch.
[5] calling them a den of vipers and whited sepulchers. Dude could turn a phrase.
[6] Jesus voted FOR taxes when he said “render unto Caesar,” and you’ll recall his labor practices when workers hired in the 11th hour got paid the same as those who worked all day – no minimum wage requirements in his parable, and the workers were essentially all scabs, so there go the unions.
[7] E. Holland’s biases are on display here with his swipes at hippie culture that seem taken straight out of Godspell.
[8] except on US Air
[9] a potential status problem if it were known
[10] contrary to what’s implied by lots of Jesus videos.
[11] or as one rabbi famously put it: “Jesus was a bad Jew.” Meaning that he was not observant. He broke the rules.
[12] Who would be more likely to be a BYU president? Dumbledore, who sends kids into the dark forest for detention, or Dolores Umbridge? Aside from being a woman, that is.
Wheat & Tares 
Neither liberal Jesus nor conservative Jesus gets it right, of course. True! Yet today’s LDS church claims to be led directly by Jesus himself but it is decidedly conservative and Pharisaical which is a trait Jesus clearly opposed and O.T. Mosaic which in practice largely ignores many of Jesus teaching including the beatitudes but fits well with conservative. So how is this disconnect explained? Did Jesus change his values postmortem? Or are these differences due to the biases of the men who run the church?
Three-quarters of Millennialls agree that present-day Christianity has “good values and principles,” but strong majorities also agree that modern-day Christianity is “hypocritical” (58 percent), “judgmental” (62 percent), and “anti-gay” (64 percent). So while the LDS church argues conservative values for it’s members, millennials rejects the values that the church uses to conduct business!
LDS liberals often object to and recoil from the strong conservative even politically conservative bias they are subjected to in LDS meetings, they are not at all balanced in the way Jesus apparently was.
Many on both sides of the aisle are feeling their shelves sagging or collapsing due to controversial church history and doctrine and it’s long time cover up and by the lack of apparent revelation in a church that claims open canon and ongoing revelation.
In short many diverse subgroups within the church are experiencing considerable dissonance and it seems as more and more of these disconnects come to light the church is really only a good match for TBMs and some conservatives. Of course church leadership and the TBMs and the conservatives want to argue that this is God’s only true church and God wants it exactly the way it is! But this must be wrong because there have been many versions of “the only true church” throughout it’s history. Under Joseph “the only true church” allowed blacks to hold the priesthood, the WoW was optional and Joseph himself enjoyed beer, wine and women. Then came “the only true church” that didn’t allow blacks to hold the priesthood, and then V3.0 “the only true church” again allowed blacks to hold the priesthood but by then the WoW is mandatory and polygamy is an excommunication offense so beer, wine and women as Joseph knew and enjoyed them are out! But remember the prophet will never lead the church astray, it isn’t in the program! The point is if all of these versions and more represent “the only true church” then the essence of “the only true church” must be something other than these things and common to all the versions and given that the church wasn’t always conservative it’s essence isn’t political or the human traits that make up these political differences.
In short the church has been hijacked by conservatives, they’ve turned it into a country club and a construction company and they’re not giving it back without a fight. But trouble is already brewing because of the problems outlined above. So what are they going to do? It appears they are staying as conservative as they can get away with while giving occasional lip service to a few liberal ideals in order to keep most of their tithe paying base (at least short term) and this is necessary to fund the construction company but they will continue to loose millenniala, liberals and those with dissonance shelf collapses. The long run isn’t looking pretty though, Missionary productivity continues to drop, convert retention is abysmal and younger missionaries appear to have a much higher early return rate. What is becoming quite obvious is the current conservative O.T. product with it’s controversial history isn’t finding much market acceptance today as compared to the past.
“Trying to retain Millenials”
The real problem is Millenials have it way to easy – they have never experienced a depression, or a war (at least a world war) and largely live in an entitlement society will all the luxuries you mentioned. They are too comfortable. I’m afraid the cycle of pride will have to play its way through for them to become truly converted to Jesus.
Ken,
That makes no sense, the generation that experienced depression, or (and) a world war are dead or are rapidly dying off and that leaves a lot of generations in between them and the Millenials who have not experienced depression, or a world war. Have you?
The Millennials have much in common with “the Greatest Generation.” Millennials have experienced the “Great Recession”, the worst financial calamity since the Great Depression, and are behaving much like them with regards to finances.
I agree with MH that the Millenials bear some resemblance to those who survived the depression, but we can’t compare aging Silent Gens with coming of age Millenials. There are also life cycle issues in that comparison. And fewer Millenials will have to eat squirrel to survive.
You’re rather kinder about Umbridge’s motivations than we tend to be in my family. She really seemed to enjoy being manipulative and nasty. Though I suppose we ought to bear in mind that horrible pendant she’d been wearing for years and years…
You’re spot on with your list of things Millenials can’t stomach. I don’t like them either.
MH/Hawk
I agree the millennial’s WILL HAVE an experience similar to those in the greatest generation. The ‘cycle’ we are in is eerily similar to this generation (along with the 1864 cycle). You had the roaring 20’s with excessive debt and speculation (similar to 2000-2008); a crash in consumer confidence and associated stocks in 1928 when the bubble burst (similar to 2008); a slight recovery (1931-1934 & 2010-2014) followed by a deep depression (1934-1941). This is followed by confronting formidable enemies simultaneously in Japan and Germany that did not end until 1945.
Howard,
Is it even possible for you to come off your high horse condescending attitude toward members of the Church and the Church itself, for that matter that may have a different opinion and different outlook than you without referring to those who do like mind-controlled sheep who can’t think for themselves, while you are such the enlightened one?
Is that even possible for you?
You believe I don’t realize others have a different opinion or outlook than I do?
You believe there are no members who have been significantly influenced by their church indoctrination in a way described here: The Psychology of Religion?
Jeff your baseless condescending comment is on par with “Have you stopped beating your wife yet?”
If you disagree or don’t like my comments why don’t you address the content or merit of my position instead of using ad hominum?
Don’t forget how questioning Dolores Umbridge is the same as questioning the Ministry of Magic, and the Minister of Magic, himself.
I think Delores Umbridge is from day one a Voldermort supporter. Certainly her possession of Moody’s eye puts her beyond the merely duped. Her animus towards Harry takes on a different cast under this view, as does Dumbledore’s rescue of her despite his personal loathing for all she stands for. She is a ravening wolf in sheep’s clothing who, one hopes would not be given any church teaching assignment.
I like that this is true.
I also like that this is true, I was feeling rotten after hawkgrrrl's generous thoughts regarding D. Jane Umbridge until I read I wasn't the only one that was wicked and judgmental.
Ken,
Why so quick to throw a generation under the bus. The Millenials are leaving and so it must be all their fault – those prideful, little beasts! Pride (the bad kind) in my experience often manifests itself in the refusal for self-reflection and examination at any substantive level. Or in New Testament terms – “Master, is it I?” Research shows that Millenials are on a whole interested in spirituality, maybe even more so than their recent predecessors. It is organized religion that is turning them off. American millenials grew up experiencing only the second real attack on US soil as they watched the WTC crumble. Many have friends or friends of friends that have died in Iraq or Afghanistan, committed suicide or were otherwise traumatized by the war. They have unprecidented access to information about the world. As small as it began to feel for my generation (born 1975) social media and decreasing costs of travel are only making it smaller. I see many in the developing world struggling with the real moral dilemma of what their obligation is to those who are becoming less faceless and nameless in the developing world. They are worried about the state of the planet and environment. They are turning to non-profit work and social enterprise in droves. I meet so many in my MBA classes that don’t just want to make money but they want to make a real positive difference in the world. I just can’t throw them under the bus so dismissively.
Churches tend to be among the most slow changing institutions of civil society. There are some real strengths to that, but certainly there are weaknesses as well. So we can speak condescendingly of Millenials and their priviledge and their easy life, but how in the world does that help anyone? We know some of the more high profile reasons that we are turning them off. They are refusing to stigmatize or marginalize homosexuals – even the majority of the politically conservative among them. They are looking for religions that speak to their global concerns and support their acting on them. Look at Pope Francis and his reception among the Catholic youth? They love him. They love that he speaks of social justice and addresses issues such as socioeconomic inequality. Because they see it and they live it. It is interesting to note that teen pregnancies and sexual activity actually begin there signficant decline among the millenials. Millenials are marrying at higher rates and are entering committed relationships at higher rates. They are pushing for family friendly workplaces. They are demonstrating much more egalitarian marriages. So don’t tell me that there aren’t lots of *good* things to work with among the millenials (in aggregate). Its all there.
Now lets be clear. The reality is that the aggregate decrease in church attendence and affiliation are coming because increasing number of women are abandoning religion – reaching the rates of men. And who can blame them? Really. Most religions, the vast majority of religions, are telling them they are not fit to lead or govern the very organizations that in turn demand so much from them. Yes we have been discussing this intensly within our own church community. You may be sick of it. You may wish it would all just go away. But it won’t! Because its real and because Millenials are refusing to accept it, especially as they grow into their own adulthood. Put our head in the sand all we want. Try half measures. Trot out whatever justifications you want. It isn’t going to be enough. It is precisely because “the world, the horrible evil world” is giving our women more voice and more opportunities to make real impacts on things they care about that the alternatives to investing in an institution that cares so much about women it is willing to only have 9 general women authorities (give or take) in comparison to well over 100 men. Oh yes and the entire professional bureaucracy is also almost all men. You know the rest of the arguments. So we can be in denial all we want. We can be content with a shrinking church. We can try and make some *comfortable*, moderate changes. We can cling to the status quo. Go for it. The Millenials will vote with their imputant feet.
“a closer reading should give both political camps pause. A liberal imagining a liberal Jesus is equally unrealistic and self-serving as a conservative imagining a conservative Jesus. Both of them fail to know Jesus and fail to recognize the shortcomings of their worldview and the ways in which they are too comfortable.”
I liked that.
Though rah, your point distills to “the Church disagrees with the current secular culture trends, therefore it should either conform or die, because *this time* secular trends are right.”
Well, I think rah is largely right on, certainly in terms of what motivates the rising generation. Now are they naively idealistic? Probably so. We who came of age in the 80s were not so idealistic. And yet, as rah points out, there is much to admire in this generation, much we could work with, but refusing to have a rational discussion about either women or homosexuals isn’t helping.
“You believe there are no members who have been significantly influenced by their church indoctrination in a way described here: The Psychology of Religion?
Jeff your baseless condescending comment is on par with “Have you stopped beating your wife” yet?”
Apparently not.
What does that mean Jeff?
“We can cling to the status quo. Go for it. The Millenials will vote with their imputant feet.”
The actual shrinking of the Church has occurred since day one. If we accept that 2/3 are less active at best, then the so-called millennials didn’t invent disassociating oneself from the Church. I’m not sure what a “drove” is these days, but it already appears the horses left the barn a while ago. This is nothing but more of the same.
And, one must remember, it isn’t always the church, it might be them.
Rah,
Just because the coming generation thinks the items they pursue are ‘spiritual’, doesn’t mean that they are. I would stick to the scriptures. It will be interesting to see what happens when their idealism meets the coming realities. Reality tends to be a cure for fantasy and idealism. God uses these realities to turn people to him and take them out of their comfort zone, see Helaman 12:3.
As for the recent conflicts you mention, it is noted we lost more men on one beach in one day, then we have in all the conflicts you mention combined.
It will be interesting to see what happens when their idealism meets the coming realities. Isn’t it traditional for older generations to shake their heads at younger generations? Where was the sweet spot and why? Adam’s generation? The 1950s?
…we lost more men on one beach in one day, then we have in all the conflicts you mention combined. Well if the body count of others in your group is somehow important to being saved the Bosniaks and Falun Gongs should be doing extremely well, the Gazians aren’t doing badly either!
Should read
…we lost more men on one beach in one day, then we have in all the conflicts you mention combined. Well if the body count of others in your group is somehow important to being saved the Bosniaks and Falun Gongs should be doing extremely well, the Gazians aren’t doing badly either!
“God is not conservative, and He is not liberal. He loves us all alike, and both conservatives and liberals have ways in which their preferred ideologies diverge from the teachings of Jesus.
But (hem-hem!) have you ever noticed how it’s the conservatives–and only the conservatives–who wind up doing the Dark Lord’s bidding?”
Apparently, you are unable to come off your high horse….
“Here’s why the criticism of liberals we sometimes hear from the pulpit is misguided. Millenials are not “hippies” who even know what the “village love in” is. And their values are not as morally relativistic as that implies. They aren’t into free love and drug experimentation. There’s a big difference between a hippie and a hipster. Let’s not conflate the 1970s with the 2010s.”
Reading this quote, I couldn’t help but think that this was a calculated message by Holland. I don’t think he was speaking to Millenials here, I think he was talking to their parents. He was trying to rally the “conservative stable base” (real or imagined) of the church and send the message of “get your kids in line” to those who would agree with him and laugh when he referenced the “village love in” cause they lived through that era (to one degree or another). I think one of the concerns of the church leaders lies in the parents who are openly supporting their LGBTQ children/family members by marching in pride parades, not rejecting their children’s partners, etc. that the church has openly taken a stand (and made harsh recommendations) on. They don’t want the boomers or even the Gen-Xers to be supportive of the Millenials more accepting world views. I think the church leaders know that they are in serious danger of losing boomers and Gen-Xers because of these policies and recommendations, the way they are losing Millenials, but if they won’t change the un-Christlike rhetoric and harsh policies, they are going to continue to lose.
“Isn’t it traditional for older generations to shake their heads at younger generations? Where was the sweet spot and why? Adam’s generation? The 1950s?”
There never has been (perhaps with the exception of Enoch and the 400 years after Christ’s visit to America) and there will not be a sweet spot until the coming of the Lord. There have been and will continue to be economic and conflict cycles. This is the great lesson from Joseph who was sold into Egypt; and, the general pride cycle repeated in the Book of Mormon (prosperity, pride, destruction then humility, then….prosperity…..).
The US entered the destruction phase on the market crash of 1929 which continued until 1945; after being humbled by this experience we moved to enormous prosperity from 1950 to 2008; pride has increased with this prosperity. If history repeats itself, at some point in the near future we will enter the destruction phase. I don’t know why we would be exempt.
With continued quantitative easing by the FED and enormous personal and governmental debt a significant economic downturn is not unrealistic. Likewise, with bubbling tensions in Russia and Ukraine; Israel and the rest of the Middle East; ISIL and everyone else; China and Japan/Philippines; Iran; Syria; Iraq; India and Pakistan; North Korea and South Korea and all of Northern Africia a worldwide conflict is not unrealistic.
Jeff,
Apparently you don’t like my blogging style. Please clearly describe using my quotes what you don’t like about it without becoming inflammatory or resorting to personal attack. In #8 you accused be of being condescending so what did I say in #1 or #3 that you think was condescending and why do you think it was condescending? I didn’t bring up anything about mind-control or sheep in #1 or #3 so what is you point and what is your question regarding mind-control and sheep?
Laurie #25 great observation!
Ken #26 thanks for explaining.
#25 Laurie, as a person who grew up in the 50s and was about the age of the Millennials in the turbulent late 60s- and early 70s-VietNam era, I can attest that that was exactly what happened. Exactly!
Howard: I can’t speak for Jeff (nor would I want to), but you do have a tendency to dominate, and I would suggest working on preventing serial comments (we all run into this problem). Just try to do one longer comment rather than 2-3 short ones consecutively.
Howard,
While the examples are spread out over your entire history here on W&T, I’ll give you two examples from this post.
#1
“In short the church has been hijacked by conservatives, they’ve turned it into a country club and a construction company and they’re not giving it back without a fight. But trouble is already brewing because of the problems outlined above.”
Seriously? This is not a fact, but simply an opinion. But in your world, anything you write is A FACT! When I sit in meetings and hear about the struggles ward members are having, not sure country club comes to mind. When I hear about hours and hours of service rendered on behalf of ward members, fairways and greens are not the picture I see.
#2
“You believe I don’t realize others have a different opinion or outlook than I do?
You believe there are no members who have been significantly influenced by their church indoctrination in a way described here: The Psychology of Religion?
Jeff your baseless condescending comment is on par with “Have you stopped beating your wife yet?””
Where did I say anything about any members and what difference does some article have to what I posted. I was addressing your behavior.
If I thought it was baseless, I would not have written it.
hawkgrrrl,
Thanks for the coaching I’ll pay more attention to those things.
Jeff,
Seriously? This is not a fact, but simply an opinion. Of course! Did you seriously believe I had been ordained with the authority to create fact? But in your world, anything you write is A FACT! No it isn’t. This is your projection. When I sit in meetings and hear about the struggles ward members are having, not sure country club comes to mind. This is not what I mean by country club. Do you frequent any CCs? Most of them are conservative and fairly like minded, there are dues and as you work your way into the in-group the networking and connections can become very beneficial in a number of ways some direct some indirect. I’m not talking about you ward or mine being a CC I’m referring to those with enough power to change the church into a conservative organization, one with a multi $ Billion annual cash flow!
I was addressing your behavior. What behavior were you addressing?
I think I will just leave it at that. Any further conversation would not be productive. I’ve said what I need to.
Fair enough.
Stephen,
I highlighed areas where I think the secular trends are right, but there are plenty where I think secular trends are wrong as well. The trends I highlighted are also the ones I think are causing major friction between the church and millenials. There are others where the church lines up quite nicely or could if they emphasized them more. For example, I think millenials would respond in a huge way to things like “service missions” which the church is edging closer to already. Clearly the women in the church have responded to the lowering of the mission age which I think is wonderful.
I think all generations are the same. Ultimately, people are people. Throughout history, trends repeat, behaviors, both good and bad, are replicated, with similar results. The difference between generations is one of context, not substance. Does anyone honestly doubt that if a global crisis like that of WWII arose in this generation, the milenials would rise to the challenge to save themselves, their families and their way of life? Similarly, if those of the so-called ‘greatest generation’ (a ridiculous moniker, in my estimation) grew up in today’s world, they’d be gamers, they’d sit in their homes surrounded by family while they text and surf on their smart phones. If Milenials lived in the ’30s and ’40s, they’d be overwhelmingly religious, just like the vast majority of the country was at that time. And if older generations grew up in today’s climate, the same number of them would gravitate away from religion as we’re seeing with milenials. In short, each generation would do exactly the same things other generations have done, in exactly the same proportions. I don’t see any justification for the idea that any generation is better or worse than any other generation. Humanity is constant. The stage on which they are placed is the only variable.