The Barna Group did a study that indicated that 60% of all Christians after age 15 "disconnect either permanently or for an extended period of time from church life." Why is that? What could possibly be going so wrong? Barna offers 6 reasons.
Reason #1 – Churches seem overprotective.Don't worry. It only gets worse. Barna also indicates that "about three out of ten young people who grow up with a Christian background stay faithful to church and to faith throughout their transitions from the teen years through their twenties." Nice. So it's not just college and it's not just teens and it's not just 60%.
Reason #2 – Teens' and twentysomethings' experience of Christianity is shallow.
Reason #3 – Churches come across as antagonistic to science.
Reason #4 – Young Christians' church experiences related to sexuality are often simplistic, judgmental.
Reason #5 – They wrestle with the exclusive nature of Christianity.
Reason #6 – The church feels unfriendly to those who doubt.
What to do? Well, we could run with the Barna research and fix things. Stop being so shallow. Embrace science. Certainly embrace sexuality and avoid being judgmental. Let's set aside this whole "exclusivity" thing, as if Christianity is the only way to God. And be more friendly to doubters, you know? These, of course, are simplistic answers ... at best. The church is likely too shallow today, but I'm pretty sure that young people from genuinely deep churches are also leaving the faith. It isn't actually true that Christianity is opposed to science. It may be opposed to some modern interpretations, but the two are not synonymous. What is being suggested, then, is not that the church embrace science, but that the church embrace modern materialism that denies the supernatural and ... oops! ... now we're out of Christianity. Young people would like to be allowed the free expression of their sexuality, but to do so would be a direct violation of Christ and the rest of the Bible (Matt 15:19; Rom 13:13; 1 Cor 5:11; 1 Cor 6:13, 18; 1 Cor 10:8; Gal 5:19; Eph 5:3; 1 Thess 4:3; Rev 2:14; etc.). And the "exclusivity" thing is both from the lips of our Savior (John 14:6) and logically required[1]. But, hey, I do indeed think that churches should bear one anothers' burdens, and doubt is one of them, so ... well, that's one of the 6 I can go with.
Others assure us that we're simply not preparing our kids well enough. If we only taught them Apologetics from their youth, they'd be ready to handle the questions when they arise. This, too, seems simplistic.
Randy Alcorn offers two issues that we are not preparing our kids to handle. First is the problem of evil and suffering. Second is the problem of sexual purity. Both, it seems to me, indicate a failure -- a failure to teach them "to observe all that I have commanded you" (Matt 28:19-20).
The other failure, in my view, is the failure of example. I don't think kids are leaving the faith because they simply aren't prepared. I don't think they're leaving their parents' faith. I think they're leaving a faith they've rarely seen, the faith genuinely lived. When Jesus washed His disciples' feet, He said, "I have given you an example" (John 13:15). Paul told the Thessalonians that he didn't do what he did because of rights, but "to give you in ourselves an example to imitate" (2 Thess 3:9). He urged the Philippians, "Join in imitating me, and keep your eyes on those who walk according to the example you have in us" (Phil 3:17).
I think young people are leaving the faith because they've never seen it. What they've seen is the tares among the wheat. They aren't suffering from an over-expression of too much genuine Christian love (1 Cor 13:4-8), but the absence of it. They aren't dying out because of too much good teaching, but from the absence of it. They aren't going out from us because they are of us, but because they never have been of us (1 John 2:19). In other words, they are not abandoning their faith. They haven't seen much of it and they've never actually had it. If this is true, no amount of "Apologetics" is going to solve the problem. Being an example of genuine faith, "teaching them to observe all that I [Christ] have commanded you", and presenting the genuine Gospel in love would be far more effective than classes on defending the faith and a better organized youth group. Sure, we do indeed need to prepare them (as Paul did the Ephesians in Acts 20), but those mostly mechanical methods don't begin to do the necessary task of discipleship and exampleship (yes, I just made that word up). Doing good things to the neglect of more important things is not a good approach (Luke 11:42).
________
[1] If all religions claim to be the exclusive truth (and they do), then there are limited logical alternatives. It could be that all religions are false, or one of them could be right. It is not possible that all (or even more than one) could be right, since they all make claim to exclusivity.
15 comments:
I don't think it helps when the "youth" pastors aren't much older than the youth they are pastoring, and they become buddies rather than mentors. Then the whole operation of youth ministry is more like high school hijinks.
I had young youth leaders when I was in high school, but they were under older youth leaders ... kind of like I imagine "make disciples" is supposed to work.
Beyond that, when youth groups, as they often do, end up as youth groups with God on the side, I don't think it's helping much at all. It seems these days that "We have to compete with the world to keep these kids here" becomes the emphasis instead of "teaching them to observe all that I commanded."
While Barna's research methodology is suspect, I'd say the reasons proffered are spot on, except for maybe #6, at least in my experience.
On science -- it is relevant for more than just "antagonism" -- until recently (i.e., the fundamentalist backlash against modernity/Enlightenment), Christians were at the forefront of science (and some still are, at BioLogos). It's the hypocrisy of prominent Christians that enjoy all the gifts of science, yet in the next breath come across the same as Islamic fundamentalists in denial of evolution, geology, climate science, etc..
On sexuality, /sorry, don't buy your take (or Randy Alcorn) as the the social research just doesn't bear this out -- teens/young adults are less sexually active than a generation ago, and much lower than 2 generations ago. Also, it's the Bible Belt, with it's abundance of overprotective, simplistic, judgmental churches, where teen pregnancies, pre-marital sex, etc. are far more epidemic than in "less-churched" locales.
But I do totally agree with this statement:
I think young people are leaving the faith because they've never seen it. What they've seen is the tares among the wheat. They aren't suffering from an over-expression of too much genuine Christian love (1 Cor 13:4-8), but the absence of it. They aren't dying out because of too much good teaching, but from the absence of it. They aren't going out from us because they are of us, but because they never have been of us (1 John 2:19). In other words, they are not abandoning their faith.
Interesting. In order to avoid the "church feels unfriendly" accusation, it is necessary to agree with current scientific views. And anyone who believes that the Bible is true and is the fundamental basis for belief is "antagonistic" along with "overprotective, simplistic, judgmental." Interesting view.
I am merely curious. My take on Randy Alcorn's view was that it's a "a failure to teach them 'to observe all that I have commanded you'." Were you taking issue with that ("don't buy your take") or with Alcorn (or both)?
Christians were at the forefront of science (and some still are, at BioLogos). It's the hypocrisy of prominent Christians that enjoy all the gifts of science, yet in the next breath come across the same as Islamic fundamentalists in denial of evolution, geology, climate science, etc
So, if Christians don't buy into the lie of evolution, the ideology of Biologos which denies the literal history of Genesis, and we deny that man is causing climate change, that makes us analogous to Islamic fundamentalists?!?! You do know, don't you, that the fundamentals of Islam call for the subjugation of the entire world and death to those who do not submit? You do know that Islam is a religion of violence when practiced by the book, while Christianity is a religion of peace when practiced by the book? No, I don't think you know that or you wouldn't have made such an asinine statement!
I have a slightly different take. I think there is a lot being made of this, but I am convinced these "shocking" numbers are not. What is socially acceptable is changing. It used to be that being outside the church was socially unacceptable, so people were "Christian" as they were supposed to be and would go to Church on Sunday to make an appearance because it was easier than the alternative.
Our culture today says it is fine and even advantageous to be outside the Church, so you see people doing what they always wanted to do in the first place. I find it very probably that those parents that weren't leading with "exampleship", never really wanted to be there in the first place.
I predict that as all these cultural Christians start leaving the Church, we see the Church become stronger and much more consistent. These kids will grow up in families that don't just go to Church, they live their faith.
1. The "lie of evolution"? 8-) You might as well just be up front, and declare you don't believe in science at all. Oddly ironic, that your "literalist" spin is only possible (ancients did not view world as such and the mythic and the truth were interwoven) in a modernist, post-Enlightenment, *science* laden world.
2. Islam and Christianity both have been practiced as "religions of peace" and "religions of violence" throughout history. There's not much different in fundamentalists from either side.
3. It's not to avoid "church feels unfriendly" (in fact, there's a lot about following Jesus that's going to be *unfriendly* to the world), it's more about not being ignorant, and using the blessing God gave us with out minds, instead of blindly adhering to stone age superstition.
4. On Alcorn and/or sexuality -- taking issue that "sexual purity" is the issue as the empirical social science research demonstrates that teens and young adults are not sexually acting out as previous generations, despite ebb of church influence. And more significant, in those places where such instruction is dominant, is where the young are plagued with sexual dysfunction -- more teen pregnancies, more STD, etc.…
Nahum,
You might as well just be up front, and declare you don't believe in science at all
Another asinine statement. Evolutionism is not science - it is a philosophy based on faith. There is absolutely NO evidence for evolution from molecules to man (i.e, macroevolution); only speculations, assumptions and assertions. Real science can be observed and tested.
ancients did not view world as such and the mythic and the truth were interwoven
Logic fallacy of over-generalization. The Jews indeed regard the O.T. as literal, including the fact that Genesis is literal history. So did the Christians until “modern” liberal theology decided to compromise with fake so-called “science” so as to avoid appearing foolish. I’d say that the Jews were “ancients.”
Islam and Christianity both have been practiced as "religions of peace" and "religions of violence" throughout history. There's not much different in fundamentalists from either side.
Those claiming to be adherents to each religion have violated their claimed holy books and teachings. Islam by the book is a violent religion while Christianity by the book is a peaceful religion. Try to understand that concept, as difficult as it may be for you to comprehend the truth of the issue.
I'm just curious, Naum. Why is it that "don't believe in Evolution" must, by definition, require "don't believe in science at all"? I ask because I can cite more than a few genuine scientists, with or without religious leanings, who have serious scientific problems with the Theory of Evolution. They have problems with, for instance, irreducible complexity, the fossil record, and the question of origins. Indeed, isn't the nature of science the willingness to question? But if someone questions Evolution, it can only be a hatred for science itself? A religious bigotry? Seems narrow-minded to me.
Evolutionism is not science - it is a philosophy based on faith. There is absolutely NO evidence for evolution from molecules to man (i.e, macroevolution); only speculations, assumptions and assertions. Real science can be observed and tested.
Simply untrue. It'd be pointless for me to elaborate here, as if you disbelieve evolution, based on this, you're going to discount any credible scholarship which plainly refutes this fundamentalist view.
The Jews indeed regard the O.T. as literal, including the fact that Genesis is literal history. So did the Christians until “modern” liberal theology decided to compromise with fake so-called “science” so as to avoid appearing foolish. I’d say that the Jews were “ancients.”
No. Go read some credible scholarship on ancient history and religion -- I would start with Orthodox Jewish Bible scholar James Kugel "How to Read the Bible" (mistitled) which lays out what "ancient" interpreters believed v. modernity v. Christian thinkers. Again, your fundamentalist assertions are simply inconceivable in a post-Enlightenment, rationalistic, science laden world.
I can cite more than a few genuine scientists, with or without religious leanings, who have serious scientific problems with the Theory of Evolution.
No you cannot -- not anyone that TOTALLY denies Theory of Evolution -- you might pose a few that poke holes in variants of evolution theory. But denying evolution would get you laughed out of any credible science program at any accredited higher institution of learning in the U.S..
Yes, "the nature of science the willingness to question", indeed. But you have come to the table with more than "the Bible tells me so!".
"I can ..."
"No, you cannot ..."
Oh, well, I guess that settles that. You know what I know better than I know it. So what are you bothering to discuss it with me for? (By the way, I actually work at a "credible science program" with people some of whom deny evolution totally ... on basis of evidence, not religion ... and who have not yet been laughed out. But, of course, since you know what I know better than I do, that's probably not true either, is it?)
Nahum
It'd be pointless for me to elaborate here, as if you disbelieve evolution, based on this, you're going to discount any credible scholarship which plainly refutes this fundamentalist view.
As you discount all the scholarship which proves evolutionism to be erroneous and plainly refutes it. Name one proof of evolution - just one. You can’t do it. You have nothing but speculations and assumptions and assertions.
Go read some credible scholarship on ancient history and religion
By that you mean LIBERAL scholarship.
post-Enlightenment, rationalistic, science laden world
“enlightened” by what — liberalism? Rather than read documents as the authors meant them to be read, it is more “enlightened” to read them with biases. Rationalistic? Nothing rational about bringing one’s own ideas about God and creation into the text - it is irrational, self-centered ideology. “Science-laden”? Since when can science determine the historical accuracy of the Bible? And so-called “science” can tell us nothing about cosmologies except to speculate based on one’s personal bias. I know everyone has a bias, but as Ken Ham says, “It depends on which bias is the best bias to be biased by.”
And, yes, there are hundreds if not thousands of scientists who totally deny evolutionism. But then your ilk claims they can’t be true scientists if they deny your religion of evolutionism.
Oh, hey, Josh, got caught up elsewhere and forgot to respond. I'm not sure I disagree that these numbers aren't so shocking. It was, after all, Jesus who said, "Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many" (Matt 7:13). And indeed it is true that much of our behavior is based on incentives. At home, incentivized by family to behave a certain way, if the behavior doesn't come from a changed heart, it will change when the incentives change.
But it also seems you're saying the same thing I did. You said, "These kids will grow up in families that don't just go to Church, they live their faith." I said, "I think young people are leaving the faith because they've never seen it." Similar, at least.
Why is it a requirement that it is all or nothing in terms of science? Evolutionary thinking has presented its evidence. Creationist thinking has presented its evidence (which is MUCH more than simply, "The Bible says so"). Which evidence you agree with is based on your bias. A person's view of origins and the development of life should not be an automatic determiner on their belief in other areas of science.
Secondly, sexuality is decreasing in youth? That hardly makes any sense, seeing as, if you haven't had sex before leaving high school these days, you're thought of as weird and a prude.
As for the OP, I agree that the answer to losing the youth is far more complex than a 6 step process and certainly must involve exampleship.
Yeah, David, I wondered about that "sexual activity has decreased" thing, too. As it turns out, studies indicate that, at least according to some numbers, it is true. The reason they cite is not religion or the lack thereof, but electronics. The omni-presence of smartphones, TVs, computers, laptops, tablets, screens of all sort with their constant drag on attention is pushing out the free time for other activities ... like personal interaction or even sex. Why engage in sex when you can have it so much better online?
Post a Comment