Living in the light of the Kingdom of God

Menu Close

Author: Joshua Nielsen (page 1 of 9)

Generationalism: Another form of Partiality

I finally put my finger on something yesterday that has been bothering me for many years about how generational based labels (e.g. Silent Generation, Boomers, Gen X, Millennials, Gen Z) are often used and the attitudes attached to them. For some context, many years ago at my church in Alabama, Summit Crossing, I heard one of the best multi-week expositions of the book of James I have ever listened to. It gave me real, challenging, and concrete ways to understand what “partiality” (James 2:1ff) actually is and how to avoid it.

“My brothers, show no partiality as you hold the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory.” (James 2:1 ESV)

Over multiple weeks, different forms of partiality were raised and addressed, among which were social favoritism, sexism, and racism. All of which share the common root of dishonoring some who are made in God’s image by devaluing or mistreating one group or person and elevating another on unjust principles of distinguishing people for relative treatment. The word used in James specifically indicates only the “positive” expression of this, as showing favoritism; but its inverse (the “negative”) expression to those not favored is a natural corollary to favoritism, and so for sake of simplicity in this article I will refer to both as “partiality.” Differences do in fact exist in social status, sex, and race, obviously, but using that as a basis of either favoritism or demeaning treatment is wrong and is a form of partiality (whether “positive” [as undue favor] or “negative” [as disfavor] expressions of it). All forms of partiality are sin, therefore social favoritism, sexism, and racism are sinful.

I would like to add to that list of sins of partiality what I will call here generationalism. This is the case where generational labels are applied to a group to characterize them, or single them out, for some form of mocking, dismissal, silencing, various oversimplified classifications (“Boomers are…“, “Gen Z is…” + [some sweeping statement]…), demeaning, deriding, sneering, cliquish (insider/outsider) alignment, improper elevation/inflation, or various expedient usages one could imagine. For sinful humans who find so many things to divide over and reasons to pit X group against Y group, generationalism fits right into the trend. Generationalism contributes to a lack of peacableness (James 3:17), which we ought to be pursuing with all people (Rom 12:18). When someone makes value judgments on entire generations of people, in a partial way where that generational moniker supposedly “defines” who they are and their character traits in contrast to others, this is as horrible as sexism and racism. It is partiality and sin. Especially when it is a false generalization or reduces someone to a lesser or ostracized status; but also when it includes idolizing a generation favorably and putting it on a pedestal.

Generationalism contributes to a lack of peacableness (James 3:17), which we ought to be pursuing with all people (Rom 12:18).

To restate this, generationalism lends itself toward seeing one whole generation as better or worse than another on unjustified grounds that leads to categorical attitudes like “I am going to treat Gen Z/Millennials/Boomers this way because of X…” relative to personal esteem. In many instances of its “negative” employment it even falls into collective slander. It can also manifest in blatant and blithe disrespect, as seen in the unfortunately common quip and meme: “OK Boomer.”[1] Or when working in the opposite direction, it tries to elevate one generation over the others by glorifying it. Here it seems applicable to mention that scripturally speaking we should neither “Lord over” others (Matt 20:25) by elevation, nor should we think less of others and treat them accordingly (devaluing them), but rather love others as we love ourselves (Matt 22:39).

But hear me right—I am not saying that using the actual labels of Boomer, Gen X, Millennial, etc. are bad or sinful in some way, but rather I am highlighting the cases where the intent for which they are invoked are in many instances used for divisive and partial treatment of one group over the other. Generationalism involves wrong intent and attitudes toward others.

Indeed, I call myself a Millennial and speak as well of Gen Z, but it is the intent, manner, and end to which I employ such labels which matters. It behooves me and others to think critically about instances where using those labels are not only unnecessary and counterproductive but also contrary to moral propriety and to peace. How many times have you heard a generation’s “name” abused? Jesus doesn’t want us to use our words as weapons of warfare. (And what was it James said about the evil of the tongue again, and how prone it is to causing destruction?) So, we need to avoid yet another “-ism” that is a form of partiality: generationalism. When we fall into generationalism in our speech, thought, and deeds, we sin. But sins can be repented of, and we can turn away from them to better things, so this is not a condemnation but a call to attention and a call to repentance in this specific area of speech and treatment of others.

It behooves me and others to think critically about instances where using those labels are not only unnecessary and counterproductive but also contrary to moral propriety and to peace.

Until yesterday when I was reflecting on this, I did not have a good mental or theological classification for his kind of reprehensible behavior that feeds more into division than being the kind of peacemakers who God blesses (Matthew 5:9). But then it clicked that partiality is precisely the category that generationalism falls under. May God save us from such improper thoughts and rash labels and rather conform us to the “way of thinking… which was also in Christ Jesus” (Phil 2:5 LSB), so that we will possess “humility of mind regarding one another as more important than [ourselves]” (2:3).

[Next up for critique some time: Ageism as partiality.]

Of Safety and Salvation in Greek

It is beneficial for students of the Greek New Testament (GNT) to gain at least some exposure to Classical Greek writings and extrabiblical texts so that they obtain a broader understanding of the language itself at large, and not only confining their study to the specific contexts of the Bible. Not least because it actually lends clarity to the reading of the GNT itself.

Not until I began studying Classical Greek did I realize that the words for ‘salvation’ (σωτηρία, sōtēria) and ‘to save’ (σῴζω, sōzō) are part of a word family that contains another word (noted below) that indicates being ‘safe’ and the general idea of ‘safety’, even though this makes perfect sense in the sense of preservation common to them. By comparison, even in English ‘save’ and ‘safe’ are related as they both descend from the Latin word salvus.

The word in question is σωός (sōos) or σῶς (sōs), which does not occur in the New Testament. I encountered it in the context of a sentence indicating that a swimmer on a particular side of an island, because of some treacherous cliffs, would be in great danger and essentially “not be conveyed safe(ly)” (using σῶς) through the waves. The meaning in context was that they would not survive swimming there. I recognized the root of the word and then it just clicked. (Here is the full Liddell Scott Jones lexicon entry for σῶς, alongside several others.) It turns out also that while the word σῶς is not in the canon of Scripture, it is found in the Apocrypha, such as in 2 Maccabees 3:15, 22 and 12:24 (click for the NRSV’s rendition of those verses).

Context, of course, determines the sense of a word, and you can’t transfer all possible meanings of a word’s semantic range into each instance of it. Additionally, not all cognate words in a word family inherently carry each other’s senses — especially as the meaning of words evolve over time. Nonetheless, the related word σῴζω in certain contexts in the New Testament would make perfect sense as preserving someone safe from something, for something, or by means of something. In Romans 5:9 the phrase σωθησόμεθα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τῆς ὀργῆς could be conveyed as “we will be kept safe through him from the wrath [of God]”. There is also some debate on the meaning of 1 Timothy 2:15 where it reads σωθήσεται δὲ διὰ τῆς τεκνογονίας, which could be translated “she will be kept safe through child bearing” instead of “she will be saved through child bearing“. I will not enter into arguments over the latter here and which is more likely correct, but want to note a potential case where the sense of being safe is not all that far away from saving.

It is notable too that the Greek BDAG lexicon and certain other GNT lexicons on σῴζω do, in fact, include somewhere in their entries a mention of the meaning of being “safe” or being “brought out safely” (BDAG, 1.b.), amidst the meanings of saving and salvation. Thus it is quite likely that σῴζω has retained some sense of safety, which is present also in σῶς, from its root word. Once one is attuned to the fact that the sense can include safety it could be used as a test of meaning to simply try a form of ‘safe’ as a gloss and see if it makes sense in the context.

Overall, this is yet another win in the category of benefits of reading Classical and extrabiblical Greek for a sharper understanding of Scripture.

The Samaritans Shall Worship In The Holy Spirit

Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, for he had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit.”

(Acts 8:14-16, ESV)

A fascinating pair of thoughts occurred to me once while considering the Samaritans’ reception of the baptism of the Spirit in Acts 8. They came to me by recalling the fact that the Jewish church was recognizing the validity of the faith of a group of people who were the Jews’ frequent rivals when they laid hands on them for reception of the Spirit, set alongside something that Jesus once said.

My initial thought was that the event in Acts 8:17 firstly hearkens back to the very discussion that Jesus had with the woman at the well in the Samaritan village, not many years before, about worshiping God through the Holy Spirit and drinking of living water (John 4:11). Jesus elsewhere associated imagery of drinking water with the Holy Spirit (John 7:37-39) when he similarly invited his audience, saying “If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink(7:37, ESV). Drinking the water that Jesus supplies would result in living water flowing out of them by the Holy Spirit (7:38-39). In his discussion with the Samaritan woman, Jesus was inviting her to not depend on H₂O but rather upon the Holy Spirit, who would quench a deeper thirst for an everlasting kind of life within her. Jesus had also prophesied that such life, exemplified through worship in the Spirit and in truth, would become a reality for the Samaritans:

Jesus said to her, “Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.”

(John 4:21-24, ESV)

The verb in verse 21 for worship is plural (προσκυνήσετε) indicating that the ‘you’ Jesus is speaking to is more generally the Samaritans, who he says will no longer worship in a specific place. Even so, quite possibly the same woman was among those who were baptized with the Spirit by the apostles in Acts 8, since it was not long after the events of the Gospels. Thus the reality Jesus spoke of was experienced by the Samaritans as he said.

Not only that, but secondly it is quite ironic how Luke in his previous account to Theophilus recorded that the same disciples/apostles who wanted Jesus to call down fire from heaven to destroy some of the Samaritans (Luke 9:54) later ended up instead laying hands on them to in a sense “call down” (via petition) the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon them (Acts 8:17; cf. 2:17-18, 33; 10:45) as evidence of their gracious acceptance by God. Luke shows quite a progression of the work of God in the hearts of the disciples over time to become agents of God’s will and desires and not merely of his raw power (fire). The Holy Spirit perfectly expresses the will and the power of God combined. The will of God is that none should perish (2 Peter 3:9), and the apostles had to overcome their prejudice to preach the gospel to them and lay hands on them to receive the Holy Spirit. This must have been an amazing occasion of recognition and acknowledgement for the Jewish apostles of the power of God’s grace to give his Spirit even to the Jews’ enemies, because it was indeed the will of God and an experience that was part of the “good news about the kingdom of God” (8:12, ESV) that Philip preached to them. God’s kingdom is a pneumatological kingdom, and his people worship pneumatologically (by means of the Holy Spirit).

That is something which the early Jewish Christians were to be reminded of again in a major way in Acts 10 and 11 when they came to see how God extended the gift of his Spirit to even the Gentiles to graft them in to his New Covenant people for His name’s sake. As for the Samaritans though, because of the faithful work of the apostles who were themselves filled and empowered with the Holy Spirit, the Samaritans were able to experience the reality that Jesus spoke about with the woman at the well: they were finally able to worship God in Spirit and in truth!