Thursday, November 14, 2013

The Me Generation

I want to talk about the Me Generation. What's most peculiar is defining who this generation is. Some call it the Baby Boomers. The boomers call it Generation X. Generation X call it Generation Y or the Millennials. Truth be told, the Me Generation is all three.

The Me Generation is all about themselves. They have less compassion for their fellow man. They are more concerned with their stock portfolio, the balance of their bank account, the stock of their food pantry, the home that pantry is located in and the car that's parked in their garage than in helping their fellow man. If they do give thought to their fellow man, it's not about helping them but rather carping about how the less fortunate are living off their hard work while refusing to lift a finger because they're too lazy to lift a finger to help themselves. Or they complain about how their fellow man has more than they do because they cheat the system.

You see, for the Me Generation, it's all about, well, me. The individual is the center of the universe. Every single event, person or circumstance is all about what can make life better, or worse, for the individual. It's sort of like a semi-sociopathic mindset, because for the Me Generation, self is the most important singular thing in all the universe, and everything should revolve around satisfying the needs, wants and desires of self.

While I believe the Me Generation began in earnest with the Baby Boomers, I think the real problem begins with the latter half of that generation, and escalates with each of the following generations. That's not to say that preceding generations didn't have individuals who were all consumed with self, because they had individuals who were definitely members of the Me Generation who were simply born out of time. But it seems those who are hardcore members of the Me Generation were more likely to create even more hardcore members when they had children of their own.

The saddest fact is, while the numbers of the Me Generation have exploded over the past 65 years, the numbers of the poor and less fortunate have exploded exponentially, as well. And most tragic is that as more and more people became consumed with self, the less help those who are poor and unable to provide for themselves and their families have received. And what little help they do receive is begrudged them by those who have more than they need.

We've become a society who worry about what our brother does more than what we, ourselves do. As Jesus put it, we're trying to remove the speck from our brother's eye while we have a plank in our own. Jesus said we would always have the poor among us, and that we are to take care of the poor, the widowed, the orphaned, the hungry, the thirsty, the naked, the homeless, the sick and those in prison. Yet we want to center in on a single scripture that states if a man will not work he shall not eat to justify not helping anyone. I agree that if someone is able to work and has opportunity to work and refuses then that person should not be helped, but in many cases today, there's no work available. Or there's no way for the person asking for help to work, such as little children. I know there are some who will say the parent(s) should work, but you cannot make the child suffer because of the parent.

As Christians, we claim to love everyone, yet we don't treat others with love. When you love someone you help them when they need help, you don't turn them away. As a parent you set rules for your children, and you set consequences if your child breaks the rules. But you don't withhold food, water, shelter or love from your child if they break the rules. That's the way we're supposed to treat each and every person on the planet. Just because they don't believe the way we do, or they don't behave the way we think they should, that doesn't give us the right to stone them. In fact, according to Christ's example, that only means we should love them more.