EMPLOYING LIFESPAN DEVELOPMENTAL THEORY

AS A BETTER TOOL
IN COMPREHENDING
GENERATION Z
(Gen Z born between 1999 and 2006)
Key Thoughts
Gen Z constitute 40% of the world’s population by 2020.

Our listeners change

Cross-generational and cross-cultural communication

ability is required

Gen Z is the least “Christian” cohort

There is no such thing as (the so called) “Millennials, Boomers,

Xers, Gen Z”
Conversion Age
1960s: 4-14 years old

1994: 85% between 4-14 years old

2004: 43% under 14

2018: “Teens 13 to 18 years old are twice as likely as

adults to say they are atheist (13% vs. 6%).

2018: Only 3 out of 5 identify as Christian

(compared to 2 of 3 adults (59% vs. 68%).”
 The Window has Broken

The teenager years that was once believed as

the most receptive years to profess Christianity
has now become a barren land of faith.
In 2018
The percentage of each generation’s biblical
worldview:

Boomers 10%

Gen X 7%

Millennials 6%

Gen Z 4%
Gen Z: The Culture, Beliefs and Motivations Shaping the next Generation (Ventura: Barna Group, 2018), 25.
Indonesia Differs Tho
Gen Z population strives

The exodus is not as massive

“Pindah” lebih banyak dari pada “Keluar”

Penyebabnya relatively pragmatic

Why Indonesian Gen Z Left?
50% : non- appealing worship and program

20% : absence of engagement between the church

and them: not given trust and empowerment

17% : disconnected from the church leaders:

church leaders are not willing to understand
their perception and thoughts

15%: inauthenticity of the church people

Dinamika Spiritualitas Generasi Muda Kristen Indonesia (Bilangan Research Center, 2018) 52.
 Joas Adiprasetya

Mainline churches in Indonesia

are no longer the majority
Tools of Cultural Exegesis

Not only to rethink how to engage with

the Gen Z culture, but also to be able to
exegete our Gen Z audience accurately.
Generational Differences Theory
(e.g., Balda & Mora, 2011; Bennis & Thomas, 2002; Graen & Schiemann, 2013) and
empirical research (e.g., Arsenault, 2004; Gentry, Griggs, Deal, Mondore, & Cox, 2011;
Sessa, Kabacoff, Deal, & Brown, 2007).

Belief: Every generation has their own

unchanging attitude, behavior, and qualities
based on their birth year. Therefore, applying
differentiated approach to each generation is
the best way to identify and subsequently
connect with each generation.
 Effective preaching will present the Gospel in
such a fashion that they are not able not to listen
because the preachers are so tuned in to the Gen
Z world they cannot turn their head away.
Before going further…
Next Gen discipleship is emphasized by the Bible (Ps.
78)

The task of teaching the younger generation is not

an option or a task to be carried by a certain teens
department or some hip youth pastors.

On the contrary, it is the main calling for every

Christian. Thus, every church leader and lead pastor
also needs to repent for not taking teaching to Gen Z
seriously.
Before going further…
Employing a specified method while
preaching to a specific group (or generation)
of people is also biblical (Acts. 17:16-34)

Paul greets to them in a way that makes

them feel at home, “captatio
benevolentiae” (a customary sort of
complimentary introduction.)
Paul uses quotes and illustrations that resonate well
with his listeners

Paul preaches so tuned in with his audience, as if we

hear him saying,

“We will begin where you are. We’ll use evidence

common to your everyday experience. We’ll go at
your pace and follow your interests, face your
problems. And ultimately we’ll find the answers to
your needs in God’s Word.”
Paul does not shy away from Gospel’s
message that may be a stumbling block to his
listeners.

Paul begins with the epistemological

assumptions of its hearers. It builds on a
common understanding of the cosmos, yet it
climaxes in the fullest self-disclosure of the
Creator–the resurrection of the God-man.
Paul’s style and content are flexible when
facing different audiences.

Paul’s style in his sermons differed in length,

in simplicity versus complexity. The
approach in each case was spontaneous,
contextual and accordingly different.
Cross generational ministry takes our flexibility to
the next level.
Due to the rapid change of technology, the
distance between us and Gen Z might be felt to be
ever- widening.
Despite the challenge, Paul’s main weapon is in
comprehending the audience well and speaking in
their language.
What is GDT?
 It is a theory that emerged in the field of sociology in the early
twentieth century.
[S]ociologists sought explanations for the mechanisms responsible
for bringing about large-scale social change. The agent of such
change, according to some, was the natural “churn” associated with
over-time dynamics across birth cohorts (e.g., Mannheim, 1952;
Ryder, 1965). The argument offered by these researchers was that
each successive birth cohort brings their own particular experiences
to bear on those problems faced by society. Because each successive
cohort is temporally and, thus, historically embedded within a given
social context, early formative experiences during childhood were
thought to uniquely shape the “shared consciousness” of each
generation.... The formation and codification of such a shared
consciousness from cohort-to-cohort gives rise to unique and
distinguishable features that are broadly characteristic of each new
generation. From this thinking, the notion of “generations” as we
understand them today emerged.
Cort W. Rudolph, “Leadership and Generations at Work: A Critical Review.” The Leadership Quarterly 29 (2018): 45.
Origins and Key Thoughts
Karl Mannheim’s (1952) Generationslagerung and
Generationszusammenhang bonded by Schicksalen

The first is shared location. The 2nd is generation

actuality. The third is destiny.

Schicksalen and Generationszusammenhang point to

the experiences grown together over time where the
features that make a potential generational location
(Generationslagerung) become an actualized generation
(Generationszusammenhang).
Strauss and Howe
William Strauss and Neil Howe (1951)

Strauss and Howe believe that “a cohort

generation consists of individuals in a shared
age bracket where they share a defined
history and their personality and behavior
are shaped by that history.

Prophet, Nomad, Hero, and Artist.

Norman B. Ryder (1959)

Ryder pays attention to unique historical situations

that influence them in their young age in particular.

Dramatic political and economic events such as the

stock market crash in 1929, the attack on Pearl
Harbor in 1941, the oil shock in the mid 1970s, or the
World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks of 2001
changed the ideas and lives of each new generation.
 The main assumptions of GDT is that there is more
variability between generational groups than within.
And a generation becomes the so-called generation
when they share similar historical experiences.
GDT’s Deficiencies
1. Could not account for
marginalized sectors of society
The theory could not account for marginalized
sectors of society.

For example, Strauss and Howe’s failure to deal

adequately with the demographics and social
reality of race, ethnicity and class in American
society has caused colleague-readers who work in
pluralistic (urban, multi-racial, ethnically diverse)
settings will occasionally find their analysis
deficient.
GDT’s findings, despite its popularity, may not
work upon minority because they do not share
much in common.

Wilson and Gerber believe, “These groups

exhibited their own patterns of generational
succession, patterns that were far stronger than
the ‘larger’ national ones. “
2. Different Theorist Different
Range
Second, there is no consensus about how
these categorized ranges of age/birth year
cohort should be constructed.
Different scholars and sociologists proposes different ranges for each generation.
3. Far from being global
GDT logic: Individuals that fall into “Group
A” display, on average, some characteristic
that is in some capacity different from that of
“Group B”, and we can tie this difference to a
construction we have labelled “generations”
that differently defines these groups

The problem is threefold:

1. The definitions of the groups are being researched by
certain researches in a certain location because GDT bases
their findings on meaningful experiences shared by a
group of people in the same location.
2. Assuming that individuals within generational groups
share the assumed characteristics of the group itself
represents an ecological fallacy (i.e., erroneous inferences
made about the nature of individuals on the basis of their
group membership).
3. Inferences regarding ‘generational differences’ are often
made on the basis of aggregated individual level data. As
a result, the possibility of atomistic fallacies is present (i.e.,
erroneous inferences made about the nature of groups on
the basis of relationships observed among individuals)
Cohort Trap
Assuming generational groups defined by
clusters of birth cohorts posses higher-level
meanings may lead one to fall into a ‘cohort
trap’ that is defined in terms of the potential
for both ecological and atomistic faults in
thinking.
4. Built on Assumption
Fourth, the GDT is built upon assumption not
empirical evidence.

Their key thoughts point out the fact that a generation’s

characteristics are built by their shared experience,
their findings dictate individual-level outcomes.

The logical flaw is as follow: “Because you experience

A, then you belong to Generation A, thus each and
every one of you that experience A will and must act
like Generation A stereotype.”
The theory is limited as it does not explain
the role of historical events, and these events
cause unpredictable reactions and these
reactions influence the next generation.

The historical events that change a generation

are the most interesting because both the
event and reaction have separate
consequences.
5. Ignores the Contemporarity

Fifth, GDT ignores the period

(contemporaneous time or the current year)
effects

It relies heavily on the cohort (one’s birth

year) effects, which focus on “past”
experience more than “present/current”
shared experience.
6. Does not have an appreciable
influence on life processes.
GDT believes that the characteristics
generations own are unchanging. For them, if
the Boomers are narcissistic in the 80s then
they still are in the 2000s.

In a longitudinal study Codrington (2008)

found that where ages and race groups were
correlated, ages are a great predictor of
attitudes and values than race.
GDT does not consider competitive
explanations such as the maturational theory,
because, GDT cannot account for whether a
cohort difference is due to experience or
maturity.
 In conclusion, in order to disciple the next
generation, GDT’s classification may not work as
promised. It does not do justice to every group of
local Gen Z (as Rudolph and Zacher plead),
especially not outside the United States. The age-
range is unclear and differing from one scholar to
another; it is not universal nor based on any
empirical evidence; it does not update its findings
to the influence of current time; and it does not
follow a generation’s life process and maturation.
 A More Accurate Alternative:
Lifespan Developmental Theory
(LDT)
Lifespan Developmental Theory

A rich toolbox to study aging, birth cohort,

and idiosyncratic influences on
developmental outcomes with cohort-
sequential design, which is the only design
that can effectively disentangle different
influences on developmental outcomes.
Originated in the psychological field but
developed by the sociologists.

Generations are better understood from a

contextualized lifespan framework that
accounts for time period and history-graded
developmental influences that may impact
individuals’ attitudes, values, beliefs,
motives, and behavior.
It is an integrative field.

The life-span work theory comes from sociology and

anthropology such as works by Bertaux & Kohli, Brim &
Wheeler, Clausen, Dannefer, Elder, Featherman, Neugarten
& Datan, Riley, and Riley, Johnson,& Foner.

Although lifespan perspective of ontogenesis originates

from many disciplines, especially within sociology, the study
of the life course and of the interage and intergenerational
fabric of society is enjoying a level of attention comparable
with that of the life-span approach in psychology.
7 Core Propositions
LDT 7 Propositions
First, development entails both continuous
(cumulative) and discontinuous (emergent)
processes, and that no age period (e.g.,
young, middle, older age) is superior to
others (life-long plasticity).
Second, development occurs along multiple
dimensions (e.g., cognitive functioning,
personality) and can take multiple directions
(e.g., growth, decline, maintenance).
Third, gains and losses in functioning are
possible at all phases of the lifespan, but
losses increasingly outweigh gains with age.
Fourth, development is malleable at any age
(i.e., plasticity; Baltes, 1987). These
propositions imply that leadership research
based on a lifespan perspective needs to take
multidirectional age-related changes in
multiple psychological dimensions into
account.
Fifth, development takes place in and is
influenced by a given historical and
sociocultural context.
Sixth, development is influenced by age-
graded normative influences (e.g., decline in
memory experiences by most people),
history-graded normative influences (e.g.,
historical events), and non-normative
(idiosyncratic) influences (e.g., becoming
unemployed).
Seventh, the study of human development
requires a multilevel, interdisciplinary
approach, ranging from the neurobiological,
to the behavioral, and the macro-institutional
levels (Baltes, 1987).
LDT’s Four Analyses
1. Biological and Cultural
Architecture
2. Selection, Optimization, and
Compensation
3. The Mechanics and Pragmatics of
Cognition
4. Age, Cohort, and Period Effects
 The purpose, as some may have been
tempted to expect, is not to provide a new or
better set of Gen Z’s characteristics through
LDT lenses.

Rather, the purpose is to raise awareness of

diversity that every person, with his/her life
process and background, is surprisingly
unique and may not be categorizable
 Although it is easier to draw generic conclusion on
Gen Z’s profile based on LDT principles, agreeing
with the essence of LDT itself, the goal is not another
generalization but rather pastoral sensitivity.

The result will not be universal but local as their

characteristics are unique one person from another,
one congregation from the other
 Application
Individual Assesment
Emotion Regulation
Age, Period, Cohort
Awareness of Age
Awareness of Age
Life Events Inventory
Assesment Material
 Bottom Line:
Our task is to tell them in such a fashion that they
cannot ignore because we are so tuned in to their
world they cannot turn their head away.

While the goal is to be heard, we believe the key to

successful preaching to Gen Z lies in listening
better and asking the right questions.