"Kids these days."

The Barna Group has released a new study that explores the how different generations of American adults view and use the Bible. And guess what - it turns out perspectives are different!

Barna groups those surveyed into four generations, broken down as follows: the Mosaic generation refers to adults who are currently ages 18 to 25; Busters are those ages 26 to 44; Boomers are 45 to 63; and Elders are 64-plus.

Not everything is wildly different between these generations. In fact "a majority of each of the four generations believes that the Bible is a sacred or holy book." Shocking. Ok, not really. But another commonality is that "millions within each of the generations report reading the pages of Scripture in the last week." That is more interesting to me.

Similar proportions of the generations embrace the most conservative and most liberal views. For instance, the "highest" view of the Bible - that it is "the actual word of God and should be taken literally, word for word" - is embraced by one-quarter of Mosaics (27%), Busters (27%), and Boomers (23%), and one-third of Elders (34%). The extreme view on the other end - that the Bible is not inspired by God - is embraced by proportions that are also statistically close to one another, including Mosaics (25%), Busters (19%), Boomers (22%), and Elders (22%).

Of course there are significant differences between the generations and their perspectives on Scripture. The Barna Group summarizes that the younger generations show the following changes in thought as it relates to the Bible:

Less Sacred - While most Americans of all ages identify the Bible as sacred, the drop-off among the youngest adults is striking: 9 out of 10 Boomers and Elders described the Bible as sacred, which compares to 8 out of 10 Busters (81%) and just 2 out of 3 Mosaics (67%).

Less Accurate - Young adults are significantly less likely than older adults to strongly agree that the Bible is totally accurate in all of the principles it teaches. Just 30% of Mosaics and 39% of Busters firmly embraced this view, compared with 46% of Boomers and 58% of Elders.

More Universalism - Among Mosaics, a majority (56%) believes the Bible teaches the same spiritual truths as other sacred texts, which compares with 4 out of 10 Busters and Boomers, and one-third of Elders.

Skepticism of Origins - Another generational difference is that young adults are more likely to express skepticism about the original manuscripts of the Bible than is true of older adults.

Less Engagement - While many young adults are active users of the Bible, the pattern shows a clear generational drop-off - the younger the person, the less likely then are to read the Bible. In particular, Busters and Mosaics are less likely than average to have spent time alone in the last week praying and reading the Bible for at least 15 minutes. Interestingly, none of the four generations were particularly likely to say they aspired to read the Bible more as a means of improving their spiritual lives.

Bible Appetite - Despite the generational decline in many Bible metrics, one departure from the typical pattern is the fact that younger adults, especially Mosaics (19%), express a slightly above-average interest in gaining additional Bible knowledge. This compares with 12% of Boomers and 9% of Elders.

Go and read the report at Barna.com, and then head back here to talk about it. What does this shift in perception mean for the church? On the one hand we want to affirm that "the Spirit of God bearing witness by and with the Scriptures in the heart of man, is alone able fully to persuade it that they are the very Word of God," but what will our part be in showing the younger generations, particularly the unchurched, the nature, value and use of Scripture? What is your church doing to help younger generations develop a healthy, biblical view of Scripture?

I have never been that guy who geeks out over Bible study software. I've always been old school. You know, I'd go with the hardcopy, printed editions of study helps and commentaries. These large, multi-volume works have taken up shelf space in my study/office for at least 20 years. And come on, who doesn't like shelves lined with books? It's a great aesthetic for a study.

Needless to say, heading out to study for my sermon at a coffee shop or a park was next to impossible. Well, unless I stuffed my bag so full of books that the zipper began to pray.

The Logos Scholar's Library: Gold has changed the way I study, where I study and the results of my studying. I am consistently impressed with it and thought I would share my review here at the blog.

Earlier in the week, we had a fascinating conversation about apostles here at the blog. It has led to a few contacts this week. I thought I would tell you about three of them: one in person, one via email, and one via blog comment.

First, in person:

Last night, I spent some time with someone that C. Peter Wagner considers an apostle-- none other than my friend and boss, Thom Rainer. (If you are not up on Wagner, he is probably the best known person promoting the new view of "apostles" that I cited in my last post-- see his recent books.)

Turns out that Peter told Thom (and others) that Thom was an apostle when he visited Southern Seminary as a lecturer. (Peter came by and visited my class for a bit while he was there and there was no mention of my gifts or office... sigh.)

According to Peter, Thom is a "horizontal apostle." I looked that up (having never heard the term before last night). You can find the different descriptions here.

Thom Rainer-- an apostle.

Who knew?

Second, via email:

Lewis McMullen, an old friend who I tried to hire a couple times, has sent me some of his research on the subject. And, since you are a faithful reader, I pass it on to you... no extra charge. I am just that kind of guy.

You can download his paper here (it is 50 pages).

Here is part of the intro from his study (published as his D.Min. dissertation):

In the New Testament there are two types of apostles. First, there is the small band of those chosen and instructed personally by Jesus called in many cases "The Twelve." These men hold the office of apostle to which there is no succession. The criteria for these men are that they must have a personal encounter with Christ and be directly commissioned by Him to carry out His work.

The second group is those men who Paul describes as apostles who were not among the twelve. In this group were included such people as Barnabas, Silas, Timothy, Epaphroditus, Andronicus and Junias.

It is at this point of discussion concerning "apostleship" that a debate is raised among scholars. There are scholars today who believe that the term apostle or apostleship as stated earlier in this paper, is synonymous with the term missionary. There are other scholars that believe that the term apostle was limited to the New Testament era and the disciples who were selected personally by Jesus. (John Mark Terry, Ebbie Smith, and Justin Anderson. ed., Missiology: An Introduction to the Foundations, History and Strategies of World Missions (Nashville: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 1998), 336). These scholars such as Everett Harrison believe that apostleship is not relevant to today and that to relate it to missionary is erroneous teaching. Harrison writes: "Warrant is lacking for making 'apostle' the equivalent of 'missionary.' In the practice of the modern church, prominent pioneer missionaries are often called apostles, but this is only an accommodation of language." (Everett F. Harrison. ed., Baker's Dictionary of Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1960), 58).

Third, via comment here on the blog:

While some debate meaning of the term and whether it is a function or an office, Don Dent invites you to quit talking and start doing. If this is the Don Dent I know and love, he is Regional Leader for the International Mission Board's Pacific Rim region. Don probably oversees more missionaries in that part of the world than anyone else.

He wrote:

Apostles are given for the unique purpose of laying a foundation, which seems to be the primary misunderstanding in recent usage. Apostles take the gospel of Christ to places where Christ is not known and lay the foundation of the church. This is why they are listed first in Eph. 4 and 1 Cor. 12. It is not that they are more important, their priority is one of sequence rather than status.

There is a need for renewal of established churches and for entrepreneurial leaders, but those are not apostles. Perhaps prophets and evangelists are needed. Perhaps entrepreneurial pastors are needed, but apostles focus on the first stage of the church in pioneer areas. If there are apostles who are frustrated by church structures, they are in the wrong place. There are plenty of unreached people groups where they can build on no one else's foundation.

So, before you get "Apostle" printed on your business card, go and live out an apostolic mandate among one of the unreached people groups in the PacRim area (see www.go2pacrim.org).

Don will find you a place along with 700 other missionaries already at work there with the IMB (and many more with other fine agencies).

In conclusion, I do not think of Thom as an apostle (nor does he consider himself one). However, I do want to see that apostolic impulse more evident in our churches and our ministries. I am struck by the lack of apostolic impulse in the church today. And, I think it is a mistake so simply equate missional and apostolic. Missional is more than apostolic. But, I think apostolic is required at that foundational, entrepreneurial, starting point... and I think we have missed it.

Take a look at Lewis paper (above) and go back to the first post here for more info.