In any serious system of accountability, the importance of a promise increases the obligation to keep it. In modern politics, however, the more consequential the promise, the less accountability seems to follow when it is broken.

Why is that?

If a business falsely advertises a product, it’s treated as a serious breach of trust. Let me give you an example:

In 2022, Samsung published advertisements showing Galaxy phones being used in pools and seawater, suggesting they were suitable for such conditions. The ads featured activities like surfing and poolside use, accompanied by promotional claims about capturing beach adventures.

Here’s a sampling of advertisements used:

You get the idea. As a result, the company admitted its advertisements had misled consumers about the water resistance of its phones, and the Federal Court ordered Samsung Electronics Australia to pay $14 million in penalties.

But why is it, when it comes to political promises, which are far more consequential, that the standard is lowered, not raised? Shouldn’t it be the exact opposite?

Why do we hold Samsung—or even the local fish and chip shop!—to a higher standard than our own politicians?

A business can face severe penalties for misleading customers about a product, yet politicians can make promises that influence tax laws, affect the lives of millions, and alter the course of an entire nation, only to abandon those promises without consequence.

So, why are those entrusted with the greatest power often held to the lowest standard of accountability?

Today, broken commitments are brushed off as “just politics,” and the result is a strange social inversion where the more important the promise, the less accountability there appears to be for breaking it.

Make it make sense.

Little wonder that One Nation’s “Fire the Liar” fundraiser has reached $4 million in public donations. The campaign seems to be the best shot Australian citizens have at holding our lying politicians to account.

In any serious system of accountability, the importance of a promise increases the obligation to keep it. In modern politics, however, the more consequential the promise, the less accountability seems to follow when it is broken.

Why is that?

If a business falsely advertises a product, it’s treated as a serious breach of trust. Let me give you an example:

In 2022, Samsung published advertisements showing Galaxy phones being used in pools and seawater, suggesting they were suitable for such conditions. The ads featured activities like surfing and poolside use, accompanied by promotional claims about capturing beach adventures.

Here’s a sampling of advertisements used:

You get the idea. As a result, the company admitted its advertisements had misled consumers about the water resistance of its phones, and the Federal Court ordered Samsung Electronics Australia to pay $14 million in penalties.

But why is it, when it comes to political promises, which are far more consequential, that the standard is lowered, not raised? Shouldn’t it be the exact opposite?

Why do we hold Samsung—or even the local fish and chip shop!—to a higher standard than our own politicians?

A business can face severe penalties for misleading customers about a product, yet politicians can make promises that influence tax laws, affect the lives of millions, and alter the course of an entire nation, only to abandon those promises without consequence.

So, why are those entrusted with the greatest power often held to the lowest standard of accountability?

Today, broken commitments are brushed off as “just politics,” and the result is a strange social inversion where the more important the promise, the less accountability there appears to be for breaking it.

Make it make sense.

Little wonder that One Nation’s “Fire the Liar” fundraiser has reached $4 million in public donations. The campaign seems to be the best shot Australian citizens have at holding our lying politicians to account.

I want to have a bit of a discussion about some of my most controversial opinions and how they are received by different generations, particularly millennials and boomers. I think there are some important insights in this discussion.

My most controversial opinions, according to the responses I get, are, ironically, things that pretty much every previous generation of Christians agreed on, at least before the middle of the 19th century:

• Men should provide.

• Men should lead the home.

• Women should keep the home.

• All who believe in Jesus are true Israel.

• There is no rapture.

• Psychology is more harmful than good.

I find that many millennial men and women see the first three as personal attacks, or even attacks on their mental health and the mental health of others. They immediately frame the views as unfair, mean, or harmful. Millennials have been trained to see traditional biblical standards as causes of low self-esteem, sometimes severe mental breakdown, or other social ills. Pick the issue, and you will find millennials who will respond this way. I have identified a few here, but the same will be true of gender issues and a host of political issues.

The last three issues usually upset boomers. This generation, generally speaking, hears those positions as at least severely errant teaching, although some see them as basically apostasy. If you maintain these positions with determination and unapologetically, as every pastor should, they really can fly off the handle about it. Some boomers even see issues 4 and 5 as pillars around which the church should base its teaching and practice. Especially if Israel happens to currently be at war, which just happens to be a lot of the time.

The last point is usually seen as equally insulting to both most millennials and many boomers. Millennials were raised to see soul health as the sole providence of psychology (used collectively, including all its diverse branches; counselling, psychology, psychiatry, psychoanalysis, etc.). Many millennials see people who are sceptical of psychology as people who are in need of deep therapy themselves, and often as unsafe persons, or simply as people out of touch with modern developments.

They have placed psychology, in its various forms, as an authority in their lives, and one that people should submit to. I even know of people who refuse to engage with their own extended family over minor issues, because those family members have refused to go to therapy. These millennials see this as a reason to remove these people from their lives. Boomers were the generation that taught them that, though you will probably find more boomers who are still sceptical of the profession.

But the theological positions noted above are all really standard Christian positions. There is nothing historically controversial about them at all. They are all well established and widely held within Orthodoxy, and really well represented across the denominations. None of these positions would have even caused much controversy in the vast majority of the church prior to about 1960. Though the white-anting of these views all began in the middle of the 19^th century, within a few years of each other…how interesting.

This is just more evidence of the inverted culture we live in. When Christians find orthodox, moderate, and standard Christian teaching offensive, and often feel like biblical truth is a personal attack on them, you know the church has come to place the Baals and Asherahs before the Lord in many areas of their life. But I’d like to process why this might be happening. Because this can give us insights into things that went wrong with these generations, which may help us correct them or help those coming up.

Why is this Happening?

One reason we see these kinds of responses is that people rarely evaluate a doctrine in isolation. They evaluate it through the lens of what they think the doctrine implies, especially about their identity and their worldview. For instance, “Men should provide” is often not heard as a statement about responsibility; it is instead heard as a statement about economic dependence, restricted opportunities, or unequal value. “Women should keep the home” is often not heard as a statement about vocation; it is instead heard as a statement about limiting women or confining them to a role.

Keeping the home is the most important role a woman can fulfil, but many people have been conditioned by decades of propaganda that has framed homemaking as a lesser role. “There is no rapture” is often not heard as an exegetical argument; it is heard as an attack on a theological system people have been taught for decades, an idea many of them have personally placed their hopes in and expect to be fulfilled in their lifetime. “Psychology is more harmful than good” is often not heard as a critique of a discipline; it is instead heard as an attack on people who received help through counselling or therapy. In other words, controversy often arises because people mentally attach emotional baggage to the proposition.

Another reason this happens is that many Christians today are formed by multiple authorities simultaneously: Scripture, church tradition, family culture, political ideology, therapeutic culture, and social media. They may say that biblical truth is their greatest concern, but they are thoroughly unaware of how they were raised in a form of Christian doctrine that is utterly alien to Church history and in many ways, actually opposes what Christianity historically was. Some have even been trained to see the Church throughout history as almost universally suspect, anyway, so appeals to history to evaluate their doctrine fall on deaf ears. This is a form of modern supremacy, or chronological snobbery, but those doing it are often unaware that is what they are doing.

So, when one of those authorities conflicts with another, the person often experiences tension. The doctrine then feels threatening because it threatens a larger worldview, not just a single belief. It becomes more than a disagreement; it becomes an attack on their identity. This is especially true today, in a society where identity is among the chief gods of modern culture.

Generally speaking, the different generations get upset about different historically Orthodox doctrines. There are obviously exceptions in each generation, but these generational divides provide us with interesting insight, so they are worth delving into.

Millennials

Millennials were formed during the triumph of therapy culture. Think about how therapy infused even pop culture in the 90’s. Star Trek: The Next Generation put a psychologist on its bridge. Shows like Fraser and The Sopranos were touchstones of the millennial generation, and both shows were explicitly centred around a psychological framework. Home Improvement, a prominent comedy of the 90’s, was presented as a masculine-centred family comedy, but if you rewatch it, you will see that it is a clever feminist reframing of men, based around psychology, and Tim ‘the tool man’ Taylor quits his job at the end of the show so his feminist wife can pursue her desired psychology career. This message was just dumped on this generation from every direction.

The dominant cultural message was not merely, “What is true?” but “What is healthy?” and often what feels harmful, hurtful or emotionally damaging. This message became a mantra of the millennial generation. As a result, many Millennials instinctively evaluate ideas according to psychological impact before they consider their theological accuracy. In other words, they immediately think about how the idea makes them feel, and they may never even get to evaluating its validity. That it makes them feel bad is enough for them to know it must be wrong. This is their guiding philosophy, at least for many.

This does not necessarily mean that they reject biblical authority. Rather, many in this generation have been trained to believe that biblical authority and psychological flourishing must always align in the way modern psychology defines flourishing. So, when they hear traditional teachings on family structure, they often ask questions like, “What effect does this have on people?” before asking, “Is it true?” That is a very different starting point from previous generations. And it blinds them to their ability to correctly identify rebellion against God on many issues. But they simultaneously often feel superior to previous generations while doing this at the same time.

We were taught about post-modernism and political correctness in schools. But many millennials did not realise they were being formed to live out these principles through therapy culture. Therapy culture cares more about “Your truth” rather than the truth. Therapy culture cares more about not offending someone than speaking what is true. Boomers pushed these ideas, but millennials were moulded by them. Many more than others.

Boomers

Boomers, on the other hand, were converted, discipled, or matured during the period when dispensationalism was highly influential, prophecy conferences were common, and evangelical publishing was dominated by futurist end times views. And you can understand why. They were born after the biggest, most apocalyptic-like war in history, then the founding of a country called Israel, the rise of the beast-like communist states, the invention of the nuclear threat, and more.

Their generation had many reasons to consider that the times and ages were coming to an end in their day. As a result, positions like a future ethnic-Israel focus or a pre-tribulation rapture can feel foundational to them rather than secondary. These ideas were in the air they breathed in many churches. When someone challenges those views, the challenge can feel larger than it actually is; it can feel existential.

These are generalisations, of course. Many boomers were strongly grounded in the secure walls of orthodox bible teaching and not drawn to the novel doctrines of their age. However, many, many were, and many of these people take criticism of their views not just personally, but as an attack on the foundations of Christianity itself. The rapture is not just a biblical possibility; it is part of a framework that places the country called Israel at the centre of world events and, in their eyes, confirms the validity of God’s word. This is a big deal for them, and you can understand why.

So, what is happening here is that people have been largely reshaped by the cultural zeitgeist of their days; they see authority quite differently. Millennials see affirming feelings as an intrinsic responsibility of any truth teller, and if he can’t do this, then he probably should not speak. Boomers see Israel as central to both world events, bible teaching and eschatological timelines; it is a linchpin, not just an idea. Imagine some young guy telling them they are wrong about fringe beliefs they thought were central and have held for most of their lives.

But as the power of millennials is rising in the church and society, I want to talk about the reasons for their response some more.

Therapyism Overtook Our Culture

Millennials were the first Christian generation raised almost entirely after the therapeutic revolution had become the dominant framework for understanding human beings. I watched a recent movie with my family during the Holidays called Anaconda. It is a self-aware remake of an old 90’s movie. And it is the most explicit exploitation of millennial tropes and ideas I have ever seen, and I thoroughly enjoyed it as a result. Especially, when one of the filmmakers noted they should make sure that “intergenerational trauma” was woven into the story. The movie is explicitly seeking to make millennials laugh at themselves. And making them laugh about how many feel hurt by their parents landed in a particularly savage but clever way, because it is true that many millennials are obsessed with these ideas.

Historically, Christians tended to ask questions like, What is true? What is righteous? What is sinful? What is my duty? What has God commanded? How should I obey? These questions were answered in a way that created objective boundaries within which people functioned and could often flourish in society. Even when Christians failed to obey, those categories generally remained intact.

Therapeutic culture rearranges the hierarchy of questions and places feelings as supreme: Is it healthy? Is it harmful? Is it affirming? Is it validating? Is it emotionally safe? Does it damage self-worth? Notice the very significant shift. The centre of gravity has moved from moral categories to psychological categories. This does not mean therapeutic culture abolishes morality. It simply relocates morality.

Sin is redefined as harm.

Virtue is redefined as wellness.

Wisdom is redefined as self-awareness.

Salvation is redefined as healing.

The saint becomes the therapist.

The confessional becomes the counselling room.

The pastor increasingly becomes a life coach.

Boomers and older Gen X remember a time when this was not the predominant culture. You see this in Gen X movies like Lethal Weapon, where the therapist is played for laughs by the damaged but entertaining Martin Riggs. But Millennials were, as we noted above, forged in this culture.

By the time Millennials were growing up, every institution spoke the language of therapy: schools, television, movies, universities, HR Departments, and especially churches. Churches took on board psychology as if it were a key to unlocking the New Testament. The culture’s views on psychology had changed so much that while in the early Lethal Weapon movies, the police psychologist was played as a joke, by the last movie, the best police officers had degrees in psychology. These themes were all over our society, everywhere. It is remarkable that as many millennials resisted this as they did, because most did not.

A millennial could spend twenty years being taught a therapeutic anthropology, at a popular level of course, before ever reading serious theology, if they even ever did. As a result, many Christians do not merely believe therapeutic assumptions; they experience them as self-evident reality. For example, older Christians might hear, “Take up your cross” and think that sounds difficult. Many millennials hear, “That sounds psychologically dangerous.”

Those are not the same reaction, not at all. Even more relevant to our topic, when a millennial woman hears “submit to your husband” she often hears this as a dangerous position to put herself in that questions her self-worth. When a millennial man hears, “husbands must provide”, and thinks about the fact that it is hard, he will often think that it is no wonder that so many men are breaking down, “That is too hard, man, too hard.” Too hard to achieve, and too harshly spoken at the same time. That is a common millennial response.

Feelings have become the ultimate authority. Even in young men and women, from whom you would not expect it. Because they were enculturated in a society that made them think that way.

This is why when you say, “Men should provide”, millennials do not hear that. They hear you say that women are being limited. Likewise, they do not hear, “Men should lead the home” as an obligation; they hear, “Someone’s autonomy is being restricted.” Why? Because therapy culture places autonomy near the top of the moral hierarchy.

In fact, therapy culture can be defined as “autonomy culture”, because that is really what it is. The worst thing that can happen to a person is not sin, it is the loss of self-expression. The highest good becomes authenticity, not honouring your obligations. Therefore, any doctrine that introduces hierarchy, authority, obligation, sacrifice, submission, or duty immediately sounds suspicious. Not because millennials have carefully refuted the doctrine, but because the doctrine collides with their deepest-held assumptions about human flourishing. They hear at the same time both the limitation on their desires, and also the lack of validation of their feelings, and these are the two greatest sins of this generation.

They would see this as traumatic, and this is why they will discuss these issues in the language of trauma. Originally, trauma referred to genuinely severe experiences. Things like combat, abuse, violence, or catastrophe. Today, the concept is often expanded to include experiences that previous generations would have categorised differently. The practical effect is that disagreement increasingly gets interpreted through therapeutic categories.

A doctrine is no longer simply wrong; it is harmful. “Your teaching on women in the bible hurts women!” A sermon is no longer merely mistaken; it is damaging. “I am afraid of the effect on my family if you don’t affirm my strict interpretation of this passage.” A command is no longer difficult; it is traumatising. “You can’t tell me to obey my husband, what right do you have to do that?”

This creates a situation where theological disagreement feels like psychological violence. That is why some reactions seem wildly disproportionate. The person is not experiencing an intellectual debate; they believe they are experiencing actual harm. And I mean, they believe it. They really do believe that is what is happening to them.

And, what is worse, is that churches took this on board probably more than any other institution. It is important to note that millennials did not create this; boomers did. Millennials were forged in this changed outlook. Many churches slowly shifted from centring their teaching around repentance, holiness, obedience, and self-denial, toward things like healing, wholeness, recovery, or emotional health. None of those latter things is inherently bad, but they do become bad when they are made to become primary.

Theological disagreements are no longer debates over objective reality. There are situations in which emotional harm and damage can be done. They hamper someone’s healing, they delay their recovery, they have a negative effect on their emotional health. Therapy culture has neutered most of an entire generation, who now wince like vampires when a window is opened at noon, when they hear a long-held Christian belief that disagrees with their identity and affects their emotional state.

Underneath the surface of these discussions is often this deeper conflict between two rival anthropologies:

1. The biblical view is that man’s fundamental problem is sin and his fundamental need is reconciliation to God.

2. The therapeutic view that man’s fundamental problem is psychological injury and his fundamental need is healing of the self.

Once those two systems are distinguished, many otherwise puzzling reactions begin to make sense.

I think it is for this reason that millennials will be easily surpassed by upcoming generations. Firstly, boomers are holding power for so long that many millennials will never get the opportunity to wield it. But secondly, many of the younger generations can see how soft this has made millennial men and how aggressive it has made millennial women. They recognise the errors of the boomer and millennial generations and are reacting to them.

Just watch younger people mock millennial feelings-based writing in movies, or millennial social justice writing in video games. They despise the therapy generation in many ways. Though they will have their own floors, it is yet to be seen what they are - maybe their relentless rejection of the real world in favour of online spaces?

Would love to hear your thoughts on these issues.

As a cultural touch point, I think this is the theme song of the millennial generation:

I want to have a bit of a discussion about some of my most controversial opinions and how they are received by different generations, particularly millennials and boomers. I think there are some important insights in this discussion.

My most controversial opinions, according to the responses I get, are, ironically, things that pretty much every previous generation of Christians agreed on, at least before the middle of the 19th century:

• Men should provide.

• Men should lead the home.

• Women should keep the home.

• All who believe in Jesus are true Israel.

• There is no rapture.

• Psychology is more harmful than good.

I find that many millennial men and women see the first three as personal attacks, or even attacks on their mental health and the mental health of others. They immediately frame the views as unfair, mean, or harmful. Millennials have been trained to see traditional biblical standards as causes of low self-esteem, sometimes severe mental breakdown, or other social ills. Pick the issue, and you will find millennials who will respond this way. I have identified a few here, but the same will be true of gender issues and a host of political issues.

The last three issues usually upset boomers. This generation, generally speaking, hears those positions as at least severely errant teaching, although some see them as basically apostasy. If you maintain these positions with determination and unapologetically, as every pastor should, they really can fly off the handle about it. Some boomers even see issues 4 and 5 as pillars around which the church should base its teaching and practice. Especially if Israel happens to currently be at war, which just happens to be a lot of the time.

The last point is usually seen as equally insulting to both most millennials and many boomers. Millennials were raised to see soul health as the sole providence of psychology (used collectively, including all its diverse branches; counselling, psychology, psychiatry, psychoanalysis, etc.). Many millennials see people who are sceptical of psychology as people who are in need of deep therapy themselves, and often as unsafe persons, or simply as people out of touch with modern developments.

They have placed psychology, in its various forms, as an authority in their lives, and one that people should submit to. I even know of people who refuse to engage with their own extended family over minor issues, because those family members have refused to go to therapy. These millennials see this as a reason to remove these people from their lives. Boomers were the generation that taught them that, though you will probably find more boomers who are still sceptical of the profession.

But the theological positions noted above are all really standard Christian positions. There is nothing historically controversial about them at all. They are all well established and widely held within Orthodoxy, and really well represented across the denominations. None of these positions would have even caused much controversy in the vast majority of the church prior to about 1960. Though the white-anting of these views all began in the middle of the 19^th century, within a few years of each other…how interesting.

This is just more evidence of the inverted culture we live in. When Christians find orthodox, moderate, and standard Christian teaching offensive, and often feel like biblical truth is a personal attack on them, you know the church has come to place the Baals and Asherahs before the Lord in many areas of their life. But I’d like to process why this might be happening. Because this can give us insights into things that went wrong with these generations, which may help us correct them or help those coming up.

Why is this Happening?

One reason we see these kinds of responses is that people rarely evaluate a doctrine in isolation. They evaluate it through the lens of what they think the doctrine implies, especially about their identity and their worldview. For instance, “Men should provide” is often not heard as a statement about responsibility; it is instead heard as a statement about economic dependence, restricted opportunities, or unequal value. “Women should keep the home” is often not heard as a statement about vocation; it is instead heard as a statement about limiting women or confining them to a role.

Keeping the home is the most important role a woman can fulfil, but many people have been conditioned by decades of propaganda that has framed homemaking as a lesser role. “There is no rapture” is often not heard as an exegetical argument; it is heard as an attack on a theological system people have been taught for decades, an idea many of them have personally placed their hopes in and expect to be fulfilled in their lifetime. “Psychology is more harmful than good” is often not heard as a critique of a discipline; it is instead heard as an attack on people who received help through counselling or therapy. In other words, controversy often arises because people mentally attach emotional baggage to the proposition.

Another reason this happens is that many Christians today are formed by multiple authorities simultaneously: Scripture, church tradition, family culture, political ideology, therapeutic culture, and social media. They may say that biblical truth is their greatest concern, but they are thoroughly unaware of how they were raised in a form of Christian doctrine that is utterly alien to Church history and in many ways, actually opposes what Christianity historically was. Some have even been trained to see the Church throughout history as almost universally suspect, anyway, so appeals to history to evaluate their doctrine fall on deaf ears. This is a form of modern supremacy, or chronological snobbery, but those doing it are often unaware that is what they are doing.

So, when one of those authorities conflicts with another, the person often experiences tension. The doctrine then feels threatening because it threatens a larger worldview, not just a single belief. It becomes more than a disagreement; it becomes an attack on their identity. This is especially true today, in a society where identity is among the chief gods of modern culture.

Generally speaking, the different generations get upset about different historically Orthodox doctrines. There are obviously exceptions in each generation, but these generational divides provide us with interesting insight, so they are worth delving into.

Millennials

Millennials were formed during the triumph of therapy culture. Think about how therapy infused even pop culture in the 90’s. Star Trek: The Next Generation put a psychologist on its bridge. Shows like Fraser and The Sopranos were touchstones of the millennial generation, and both shows were explicitly centred around a psychological framework. Home Improvement, a prominent comedy of the 90’s, was presented as a masculine-centred family comedy, but if you rewatch it, you will see that it is a clever feminist reframing of men, based around psychology, and Tim ‘the tool man’ Taylor quits his job at the end of the show so his feminist wife can pursue her desired psychology career. This message was just dumped on this generation from every direction.

The dominant cultural message was not merely, “What is true?” but “What is healthy?” and often what feels harmful, hurtful or emotionally damaging. This message became a mantra of the millennial generation. As a result, many Millennials instinctively evaluate ideas according to psychological impact before they consider their theological accuracy. In other words, they immediately think about how the idea makes them feel, and they may never even get to evaluating its validity. That it makes them feel bad is enough for them to know it must be wrong. This is their guiding philosophy, at least for many.

This does not necessarily mean that they reject biblical authority. Rather, many in this generation have been trained to believe that biblical authority and psychological flourishing must always align in the way modern psychology defines flourishing. So, when they hear traditional teachings on family structure, they often ask questions like, “What effect does this have on people?” before asking, “Is it true?” That is a very different starting point from previous generations. And it blinds them to their ability to correctly identify rebellion against God on many issues. But they simultaneously often feel superior to previous generations while doing this at the same time.

We were taught about post-modernism and political correctness in schools. But many millennials did not realise they were being formed to live out these principles through therapy culture. Therapy culture cares more about “Your truth” rather than the truth. Therapy culture cares more about not offending someone than speaking what is true. Boomers pushed these ideas, but millennials were moulded by them. Many more than others.

Boomers

Boomers, on the other hand, were converted, discipled, or matured during the period when dispensationalism was highly influential, prophecy conferences were common, and evangelical publishing was dominated by futurist end times views. And you can understand why. They were born after the biggest, most apocalyptic-like war in history, then the founding of a country called Israel, the rise of the beast-like communist states, the invention of the nuclear threat, and more.

Their generation had many reasons to consider that the times and ages were coming to an end in their day. As a result, positions like a future ethnic-Israel focus or a pre-tribulation rapture can feel foundational to them rather than secondary. These ideas were in the air they breathed in many churches. When someone challenges those views, the challenge can feel larger than it actually is; it can feel existential.

These are generalisations, of course. Many boomers were strongly grounded in the secure walls of orthodox bible teaching and not drawn to the novel doctrines of their age. However, many, many were, and many of these people take criticism of their views not just personally, but as an attack on the foundations of Christianity itself. The rapture is not just a biblical possibility; it is part of a framework that places the country called Israel at the centre of world events and, in their eyes, confirms the validity of God’s word. This is a big deal for them, and you can understand why.

So, what is happening here is that people have been largely reshaped by the cultural zeitgeist of their days; they see authority quite differently. Millennials see affirming feelings as an intrinsic responsibility of any truth teller, and if he can’t do this, then he probably should not speak. Boomers see Israel as central to both world events, bible teaching and eschatological timelines; it is a linchpin, not just an idea. Imagine some young guy telling them they are wrong about fringe beliefs they thought were central and have held for most of their lives.

But as the power of millennials is rising in the church and society, I want to talk about the reasons for their response some more.

Therapyism Overtook Our Culture

Millennials were the first Christian generation raised almost entirely after the therapeutic revolution had become the dominant framework for understanding human beings. I watched a recent movie with my family during the Holidays called Anaconda. It is a self-aware remake of an old 90’s movie. And it is the most explicit exploitation of millennial tropes and ideas I have ever seen, and I thoroughly enjoyed it as a result. Especially, when one of the filmmakers noted they should make sure that “intergenerational trauma” was woven into the story. The movie is explicitly seeking to make millennials laugh at themselves. And making them laugh about how many feel hurt by their parents landed in a particularly savage but clever way, because it is true that many millennials are obsessed with these ideas.

Historically, Christians tended to ask questions like, What is true? What is righteous? What is sinful? What is my duty? What has God commanded? How should I obey? These questions were answered in a way that created objective boundaries within which people functioned and could often flourish in society. Even when Christians failed to obey, those categories generally remained intact.

Therapeutic culture rearranges the hierarchy of questions and places feelings as supreme: Is it healthy? Is it harmful? Is it affirming? Is it validating? Is it emotionally safe? Does it damage self-worth? Notice the very significant shift. The centre of gravity has moved from moral categories to psychological categories. This does not mean therapeutic culture abolishes morality. It simply relocates morality.

Sin is redefined as harm.

Virtue is redefined as wellness.

Wisdom is redefined as self-awareness.

Salvation is redefined as healing.

The saint becomes the therapist.

The confessional becomes the counselling room.

The pastor increasingly becomes a life coach.

Boomers and older Gen X remember a time when this was not the predominant culture. You see this in Gen X movies like Lethal Weapon, where the therapist is played for laughs by the damaged but entertaining Martin Riggs. But Millennials were, as we noted above, forged in this culture.

By the time Millennials were growing up, every institution spoke the language of therapy: schools, television, movies, universities, HR Departments, and especially churches. Churches took on board psychology as if it were a key to unlocking the New Testament. The culture’s views on psychology had changed so much that while in the early Lethal Weapon movies, the police psychologist was played as a joke, by the last movie, the best police officers had degrees in psychology. These themes were all over our society, everywhere. It is remarkable that as many millennials resisted this as they did, because most did not.

A millennial could spend twenty years being taught a therapeutic anthropology, at a popular level of course, before ever reading serious theology, if they even ever did. As a result, many Christians do not merely believe therapeutic assumptions; they experience them as self-evident reality. For example, older Christians might hear, “Take up your cross” and think that sounds difficult. Many millennials hear, “That sounds psychologically dangerous.”

Those are not the same reaction, not at all. Even more relevant to our topic, when a millennial woman hears “submit to your husband” she often hears this as a dangerous position to put herself in that questions her self-worth. When a millennial man hears, “husbands must provide”, and thinks about the fact that it is hard, he will often think that it is no wonder that so many men are breaking down, “That is too hard, man, too hard.” Too hard to achieve, and too harshly spoken at the same time. That is a common millennial response.

Feelings have become the ultimate authority. Even in young men and women, from whom you would not expect it. Because they were enculturated in a society that made them think that way.

This is why when you say, “Men should provide”, millennials do not hear that. They hear you say that women are being limited. Likewise, they do not hear, “Men should lead the home” as an obligation; they hear, “Someone’s autonomy is being restricted.” Why? Because therapy culture places autonomy near the top of the moral hierarchy.

In fact, therapy culture can be defined as “autonomy culture”, because that is really what it is. The worst thing that can happen to a person is not sin, it is the loss of self-expression. The highest good becomes authenticity, not honouring your obligations. Therefore, any doctrine that introduces hierarchy, authority, obligation, sacrifice, submission, or duty immediately sounds suspicious. Not because millennials have carefully refuted the doctrine, but because the doctrine collides with their deepest-held assumptions about human flourishing. They hear at the same time both the limitation on their desires, and also the lack of validation of their feelings, and these are the two greatest sins of this generation.

They would see this as traumatic, and this is why they will discuss these issues in the language of trauma. Originally, trauma referred to genuinely severe experiences. Things like combat, abuse, violence, or catastrophe. Today, the concept is often expanded to include experiences that previous generations would have categorised differently. The practical effect is that disagreement increasingly gets interpreted through therapeutic categories.

A doctrine is no longer simply wrong; it is harmful. “Your teaching on women in the bible hurts women!” A sermon is no longer merely mistaken; it is damaging. “I am afraid of the effect on my family if you don’t affirm my strict interpretation of this passage.” A command is no longer difficult; it is traumatising. “You can’t tell me to obey my husband, what right do you have to do that?”

This creates a situation where theological disagreement feels like psychological violence. That is why some reactions seem wildly disproportionate. The person is not experiencing an intellectual debate; they believe they are experiencing actual harm. And I mean, they believe it. They really do believe that is what is happening to them.

And, what is worse, is that churches took this on board probably more than any other institution. It is important to note that millennials did not create this; boomers did. Millennials were forged in this changed outlook. Many churches slowly shifted from centring their teaching around repentance, holiness, obedience, and self-denial, toward things like healing, wholeness, recovery, or emotional health. None of those latter things is inherently bad, but they do become bad when they are made to become primary.

Theological disagreements are no longer debates over objective reality. There are situations in which emotional harm and damage can be done. They hamper someone’s healing, they delay their recovery, they have a negative effect on their emotional health. Therapy culture has neutered most of an entire generation, who now wince like vampires when a window is opened at noon, when they hear a long-held Christian belief that disagrees with their identity and affects their emotional state.

Underneath the surface of these discussions is often this deeper conflict between two rival anthropologies:

1. The biblical view is that man’s fundamental problem is sin and his fundamental need is reconciliation to God.

2. The therapeutic view that man’s fundamental problem is psychological injury and his fundamental need is healing of the self.

Once those two systems are distinguished, many otherwise puzzling reactions begin to make sense.

I think it is for this reason that millennials will be easily surpassed by upcoming generations. Firstly, boomers are holding power for so long that many millennials will never get the opportunity to wield it. But secondly, many of the younger generations can see how soft this has made millennial men and how aggressive it has made millennial women. They recognise the errors of the boomer and millennial generations and are reacting to them.

Just watch younger people mock millennial feelings-based writing in movies, or millennial social justice writing in video games. They despise the therapy generation in many ways. Though they will have their own floors, it is yet to be seen what they are - maybe their relentless rejection of the real world in favour of online spaces?

Would love to hear your thoughts on these issues.

As a cultural touch point, I think this is the theme song of the millennial generation: