Consulting the tea leaves

I am not a prophet nor the son of prophet.

I am however a plagiariser and I stole that opening from Phillip Jensen. Gazing into a crystal ball doesn't sound Christian, so instead I have consulted the tea leaves and wish to put forward a prediction for the future (whilst simultaneously wondering if that was tautology seeing I'm unsure if it is possible to predict the past).

Anyways, I digress. There is a well known adage in Christian circles that I've seen attributed to a number of sources including Don Carson, that "one generation believes a truth, the next generation assumes the truth and the third generation denies the truth." This seems an entirely logical statement to make, and from my understanding of a number of formerly evangelical organisations, it seems to be consistent with fact.

Who is the second generation? The one that doesn't preach the gospel.

But how do they become the second generation? It seems to me, that knowing the 'generations saying', doesn't immunise us from its outcome. It's also hard to recognise because it's not that they don't believe it, rather it is simply assumed. And certainly no one wants to be that second generation. So will it be me?

I have been postulating recently on the effect/affect that the increasing prevalence of online community will have on Christian truth. Without evidence, I suggest a major reason the first generation discovers or rediscovers and believes the truth is because they have to fight for it. When the truth is under attack, it forces us to be clearly defined in what we do and don't adhere to. Another baseless claim I want to make is that it appears to me, the more likely you would need to fight for these truths is dependent upon how much you are in the minority. If everyone believes the same as you, why would you need to fight for the truth? You might need to protect it by some means, but not in the same way that having to fight for the truth brings people united behind it.

So here's the rub. There are so many people on the internet that you can gather support for just about anything. Just have a look at the amount of groups on Facebook. Whether you want to find 20,000 people who hate the Roosters, People who always have to spell their names out for other people, Bug me during Grey's Anatomy and I'll insert this scalpel into your spleen, or I don't care how comfortable Croc's are, you look like a dumbass, no matter what your cup of tea as it were, no matter how obscure your personal tastes, you can find thousands of other people just like you. Complete with all your own little freaky preferences and desires.

I love the internet. I love the possibilities it presents. I love that I can communicate so easily with people on the opposite side of Australia and the world. But when I can gather a whole bunch of people who think pretty much exactly like I do, I will no longer have to fight for the truth. In fact I'll never truly feel in the minority. Even within these groups, if I don't agree, there's plenty more out there who will. The benefit of being in the minority is that it causes us to fight hard and rally behind the truth, to by godly disagreement be forced to define what we believe.

Now of course, I'll never meet someone that thinks exactly the same about everything as I do. Yet even then, this if anything magnifies the problem. We end up defining not the core (which is assumed) but instead define our agreement on peripheral matters. We will major on the minors.

The tea leaves are telling me the blessings of the online world, increase our chances of assuming the gospel.

Any true prophets wish to give a word of knowledge?