Why kids leave church...

I love this. I was talking attrition in Brazilian jiu jitsu with a black belt friend the other day (it's estimated around 90% at the lowest level alone) and the conversation turned the way it normally does...two people who haven't quit guessing about the motivations of those who have. Our community does it a lot, but I think churches do it more. That's when I saw this post this morning, I was elated. Someone did the leg work of talking to kids who'd been raised in the church and left. Check out the complete article here, but here is the summarized list.


10. The Church is "Relevant." (too relevant apparently)
9. They never attended church to begin with.
8. They get smart.(groups outside the church treated them as intelligent beings)
7. They were sent out unarmed
6. Faith was represented to them as little more than feelings
5. Kids experience faith as something they "do" and that do "can be found places other than the church"
4. They found better feelings elsewhere
3. They got tired of pretending to be happy
2. Their diet of Law has condemned them
1. Church is presented as a place to learn life principles and "you don't need a crucified Jesus for that"

I'm not Evangelical (though I do attend an Evangelical church), but seeing anyone ask these real questions of the people who know...I find it heartening, especially the comment section.

Christians attacking Christians

Warning...Free flow post ahead...

I need a new title as a Christian...and I mean that. I no longer want to be associated with the cultural norm of Christianity in America. The religion has been co-opted by people who operate on principles that I not only despise, but that I believe are un-Biblical and inherently contradictory. First it was complaints about Easter not being widely recognized enough...you know...the way the way Christmas is...as if they want to start the fight to put Christ back in Easter too. Now, there's an uproar at my alma mater.

Let me start this off by saying that I have little nice to say about FAU's professors. I met some great ones, yes, but when it came to dealing with even non-tenured faculty and some of their ridiculous behavior, it left a horrible taste in my mouth. So...

A couple of weeks ago, a story was reported about a professor telling his students to write "Jesus" on a piece of paper and stomp on it. It was said that the student refused and was suspended. The professor then started receiving threats to his safety from groups, both religious and political.

I understand there is a bias against higher education among Conservatives in this country, but just on the surface, this story was suspect and I don't get the knee jerk reaction...students aren't suspended for not participating in exercises. They just aren't. Failed? Yes, but not suspended. I listened (and watched) people rail against liberal bias in education. I've heard it since my days in a Southern Baptist school...public schools will teach you nothing but evolution in science class and make you hate Jesus in English and History.

...and then I went to a public high school...and a public university. We covered evolution...maybe three times in those eight years. The rest was that huge chunk of science that has nothing to do with our origins. I went to See you at the Pole, sang spirituals in chorus and in college, got credit for a six week study of the book of James run by a minister that included prayer. Jesus was never referred to as "just a great man". Perhaps I would have heard more if my studies were less scientific and more based on the humanities...perhaps. Right or wrong though, I've learned to question the cries of victimization of the American church and their demonetization of an educational system that they once so beautifully participated in and were fundamental in creating.

So today, more information was released about the professor. Turns out he's Christian...not just I-used-to-go-to-church-as-a-kid Christian, but he openly claims Jesus as his "lord and savior". Turns out the exercise was to write "Jesus" on a piece of paper and then step (not stomp) on it. Why? The exercise assumes that the students will hesitate and then discussion begins about the meaning of words. I am sure, that if a pastor asked their congregation to do the same, there would be no complaints. I can see Ravi Zacharias, who constantly speaks on the importance of words having meaning, using just such an illustration and Christians marveling at his wisdom...precisely because the foundation of the exercise is the widely perceived importance of Jesus.

The embattled student? Well, he refused, as was his right. He then confronted the professor after class, punching his fist into his opposite hand, and telling the professor that he wanted to hit him. He was suspended for physically threatening faculty...as he should have been.

I know, very well, that there are powerful swaths of movement in the US to push God and Jesus out of our lives. I know probably better than most who identify as Christian because I spend so much time in circles with bents toward the academic and the intellectual and the foreign...but I will tell you that an atheist comparing God to Santa Claus isn't one tenth as painful or offensive as a Christian who has forgotten his principles for the sake of retaliation. (John 18 and the story of Peter and Malchus has some application here) I will tell you that the lack of peace that so many Christians flaunt is hammering that last nail into the coffin of the American church. Ask people why they don't go to church or why they stopped and I know, from personal experience, that the reason isn't evolution or education or porn. It's us.

I watched comments on the situation at FAU and of course I saw it. I always see it so I knew it was coming...the three or four individuals who were observing the Christians. The three or four who asked, quite calmly, why those claiming to be Christian were the worst behaved in the conversation. Not the caricatures of the bitter, rude atheist or the mocking agnostic. These were people who were just observing. Maybe they had already made up their minds and hearts about Christianity, but I know that not everyone reading those conversations were.

I very firmly believe Christians, in our unwillingness to call out the bad behavior of those we worship with, are the central reason Christianity is becoming less and less relevant in this country. All these issues that we see as the "cause" of God's removing his blessings from us? I believe that they ares symptoms of a country of Christians digging in to its own pride and superiority generations ago, and unrepentantly wallowing in them today. 

Christians: The Popular Kids

It hit me, REALLY hit me today...Easter...that the American church is reeling not from the pain of the loss of holiness of its home country, not from figuring out what it means to be Christian, but instead what it means to be "American". I think I further cemented this realization watching the debate on Gay marriage and the sheer panic that some (definitely not all) Christians are experiencing. There are basically two reasons to freak out in this situation: People haven't accepted that God is in control, or there's a different crisis of public identity going on. I have come to believe, primarily due to the complete absence of the discussion by those against marriage equality of discussing applying Biblical marriage principles to heterosexual unions and couples, that the Bible is not the true motivation behind the religious Right's fight to legally institute semi-Biblical marriage.

 Being what most would describe as a progressive Christian, and one with an intellectual bent at that, I am constantly on guard of trying to rationalize my way to God, be it because of natural tendencies or some latent need to not feel at odds with the smart-kids. There's always a teeny part of me that worries that I'm missing the mark when it comes to public application of morality.

Today, I ran across this quote by Billy Graham, which surprised me a bit (and not just because of its contrast to his son's recent efforts to re-write his father's history).

“I don’t think there’s any conflict at all between Science today and the Scriptures. I think we have misinterpreted the Scriptures many times and we’ve tried to make the Scriptures say things they weren’t meant to say. I think that we have made a mistake by thinking the Bible is a scientific book. The Bible is not a book of science. The Bible is a book of Redemption, and of course, I accept the Creation story. I believe that God did create the universe. I believe that God created man, and whether it came by an evolutionary process and at a certain point He took this person or being and made him a living soul or not, does not change the fact that God did create man….whichever way God did it makes no difference as to what man is and man’s relationship to God.” (from a book that's going on my reading list)

He said this back in 1997 and while I was in college and could have easily missed it, I don't remember any huge uproar over it...but then again, Christianity still felt popular back then and there was much less questioning of what it meant to be an American.

...and I'm just adding this video because it's something I know I'll want to come back and watch later, and blogs are good for that.

Profanity...the next level...

I've never been one to use much profanity. To me, it's like someone giving you little pushes while you're talking...you're not hurt, but you're likely distracted and eventually, it could really tick you off.

When I was little, I received three distinct messages about the use of profanity--1) It's a legitimate part of speech used to convey aggression or anger...if you don't want to convey those two, don't use it. 2) It's frequently perceived as being lower class. 3) It's used by people when they don't know how to properly express themselves. Those three different approaches to the use of a part of a language (emotional, class signals and personal intelligence) very much shaped how I use it today. All in all, I generally don't.

At the same time though, "gosh" and "darn" make me feel a bit too Leave-it-to-Beaverish and are honestly short-cuts to saying what I really feel, so I've been making an effort to actually express instead of just emote...both in my spoken life and on the internet. Gotta up the English game. 

Anti-institutionalism and the Church

I was talking to my father the other day, who mentioned that one of the main reasons young people leave the church is because of evolution being taught in schools. This idea--the thought that the great forces of the American educational system are pulling people in droves from the pews--is one that's come to ring a bit misguided on my ears. I honestly don't believe most people think that deeply about their existence for evolution vs. creation to be the make or break decision that keeps people in bed on Sunday mornings.

I was talking to a friend at the gym yesterday--one who used to attend church but no longer does--about the concept. He said he didn't go because he never left with anything useful. I really had to think about that, since so many people I know who no longer attend church...well...they're not doing a lot of deep thinking about the origins of life. Most people are working their way through every day life the best they can and a result of that in the US has left a large number of people turned against institutions, all institutions. 

It started back in the 60s and 70s. People stopped trusting business, government, the police, the church, marriage...the list goes on. I've been reading Chris Hayes' Twilight of the Elites, and well, I think he's hit on something. The the moral leaders, the sports heroes, politicians, doctors, lawyers, scientists, teachers,  priests, police officers, ambassadors...they've all let us down. The bond has been broken and I doubt will be easily rebuilt, if it can be at all.

That lack of trust in the institution and the very concept of hierarchy is what I believe the church is seeing manifested in its dropping attendance numbers. These days I don't believe most people will even get close enough to the church to reject its teachings. They mistrust the structure itself--a structure I don't believe is even necessary to the faith (especially considering the structure of the early church). 

The big problem there though, is what the alternative is. I've had this discussion with my best friend before--both of us being single, childless and unmarried. Society, religious or secular, has no connection points for us. No home base. We are not married, we are not mothers and therefore we are not. The church also reflects that. I don't know if any society has been able to promote connection based on anything deeper than demographic check boxes. I believe most societies actually discourage it for the sake of their own preservation.

So yeah...no one knows how to answer our question and our question is spreading into the world of the non-singles. How do people bond if marriage, procreation, family, home and career are no longer a trustworthy? Until that question is answered and the answer applied within church walls, those outside the church, those coming up as children in the church and those considering leaving will find little reason for connection beyond commandment. 

"How Christians Should Vote"

So the article from my previous post was the impetus I needed to finally download Tony Evans' How Christians Should Vote. I'm really torn as to whether the book is great, or more political propaganda in palatable packaging.

This book highlights a recent revelation I've been having around the importance of subtext. In this case, I really can't say there's anything I disagree with in his advice on how Christians should approach the voting process. He considers voting and civil involvement a Biblically mandated social responsibility (I've had a couple of friends insist that Christians should remove themselves from the process altogether to remain uncorrupted in God's sight). He insists that character matters and that conduct outside of the political office cannot be 100% separated from conduct within. He advocates allegiance to God over party (my non-party affiliated self swelled with pride at that point) and many times explains that we are to carefully and prayerfully weigh issues and candidates individually. So yeah...all stuff I agree with.

...still...there were two points that stuck in my craw. First, he makes a point...points rather, of clearly laying out the demons of socialism...the sloth and reliance it can create...the worship of government over God that it may grow to foster. Yet, there is no mention of the potential dangers of capitalism (the word "capitalism" appears 0 times and when something isn't named, it's much less likely to be critiqued in the reader's mind) in potential for self-worship and its fertilization of greed. This leaves the faint and lasting impression that systems of socialism, fascism and communism are "not of God" and the alternative is. Considering that all man-made systems of government and economics are subject to the same failings we posses, I found this a bit (or possibly highly) telling. I was glad though, to not see him fall back on the cop-out of touting theocracy as the preferred system of government. We know that would be preferable, but God has left us to rule ourselves and we must make decisions, difficult though they may be.

The second...I got the feeling that Dr. Evans is reaching when he claims that "A constitutional republic is the biblical form of government God gave to Moses." He goes on to explain that the founding fathers emulated this system when setting up the American government because they wanted a government founded on the will of the people, but subject to a constitution which in turn was interpreted by leaders guided by God. He then explains that in Exodus 18:17-27, Moses set up a "bottom-up system" of rule where the people had representatives who were lead by God. This all follows his stating that "democracy" isn't mentioned in our founding documents (neither are "Jesus" or "capitalism" by the way) and how democracy can easily result in 51% "mobocracy" in a section labeled "The Tyranny of the 51%".

The concept had me curious though, so I had to check out Exodus. It's quite apparent that Moses selected the representatives, leaving this system, from what I can tell, anything but bottom-up. It was inherently top-down...from God, to Moses, to the representatives, to the people. Which left me wondering how this system could be described by anyone as a government "of the people". This is where I think, Dr. Evans ran into the conundrum that faces so many American Christian conservatives. Much of the Bible points to top-down systems of governing...from the spheres of the personal, to the home to the church to society as a whole. The logical progression here, is to monarchs and popes--people supposedly appointed and lead by God...the very things America's founders fled. But, no one west of the Atlantic wants to say that the Catholics and the English got it right, or worse, that American and Protestant ideals of government are no more effective or Godly in the long run.

I am no huge fan of democracy...I see too much stupidity in individual decision making, too much prejudice, too little thought and too much laziness of character to be one...BUT, I do still believe that, if we are to govern ourselves, that all of us should have a say. I believe democracy should play a part in our governmental processes. What put me off most in his critique of democracy though, is that it implies that God's power is somehow limited if we choose democracy...as if a choice in government is our way of giving God permission to influence our political lives.

As I was writing this, I ran across a statement that I missed. Dr. Evans says, "...the church could influence through uniting and offering up its own party candidate". I find the idea of the church uniting almost humorous in a country that houses more that 40,000 Christian denominations. I also find it a bit puzzling as to how a candidate would be selected considering that relatively few issues of government are actually moral ones--but that's a topic for another day.

My stuck craw boils down to this--while Evans outright says that God is neither a Democrat nor a Republican, his writing is bent quite squarely against the central tenants of the Democratic party--and so I have a hard time calling this an even-handed book on anything but a superficial level (perhaps that wasn't his goal). It's definitely a good read though, especially for Christians that tend to be 1-issue voters or plagued by conscience when they don't give in to moral bullying around one or two fad-issues. 

"Why God Isn't Blessing the American Church"

That's the title of this interview with Tony Evans that I just finished reading. It addresses his book, Oneness Embraced and his take on the issue of racial segregation and confirms something that's been eating at me for a while now...that racial and cultural division within the church is nothing to be taken lightly. This answer jumped out at me the most...

CL: Do you really believe that God’s going to postpone His blessing and work in the church because of our lack of unity?

TE: Absolutely.  That’s a fundamental principle.  He does this in a number of places in Scripture:  Ephesians 2, Ephesians 3:10.  So the oneness issue is not a sideline issue.  It’s not even a sideline issue in the family.  God says that when the husband and wife are divided, tell the husband, “Don’t bother to pray.”  God’s not listening (1 Peter 3:7).

So the issue of unity has everything to do with God’s absence or presence.  God first checks with the church house before He does anything with the White House.  We want things to be better in the country, and God can’t even get them better on Sunday morning.  And one of the major divisions is racial, so in light of all this, I think that this was the time to make a big call for unity.

This is why I believe God has ingrained the church so deeply in American history. Not because we are any more holy than any other nation, but because we are natural reformers...because we tackle the big, ugly questions of human existence head on. Because we do not settle for the oft-misguided comfort of tradition and custom. I believe the political and racial division in this country is an opportunity for the church to show the world what a real miracle is.

What I like most about the interview, and what I hope the book expounds on (just downloaded...woo!), is actual action steps. I've heard people lament the segregation of the church, but the discussion usually stops there--and that's because most of us are happy with it. Not just ok. Happy.

If you ask most people, their peer group is full of people like them on some level. People like being around other people like them. It makes them feel normal, accepted and safe. That's important, but at some point, both in and out of the church, a maturing person and Christian has to walk past satisfaction with comfort and aim for something higher.

I personally have an abnormally diverse peer group. Race, age, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, income, intelligence level, belief in God, physical ability...but I have one big bias...introverts. I LOVE people like me on that spectrum. Extroverts ..I can say all I want about understanding their usefulness, but that comes from little more than half-hearted rationalization and knee-jerk efforts to be inclusive so that I feel even-handed and...nice. I don't enjoy being around extreme extroverts. Not even smart ones, or Black ones, or single ones or...you get it. I have a few friends that are extrovert-lite, but no one I know is extreme. That is a failing on my part. I'm not saying I should be able to totally revamp the contacts list in my phone, but Jesus should be enough and I should, as a mature Christian, be able to get past my own biases against the personality type and form genuine bonds. I've just met a new VERY extroverted Christian friend and, well, we'll see. That though, ties into the comment Dr. Evans made that integrating the church isn't about congregations holding events together, but instead about people extending themselves into new types of relationships in their individual lives.

I'll admit one of the saddest things in my life. I find more connection, more acceptance, more comfort in the world of Brazilian jiu jitsu than I do and ever have in the church--any church, Black or White. I believe quite firmly that that is because the primary focus of those that train is training. It is dedication to the art. The church, with its deeply entrenched history of absorbing the faults of the world (it didn't start with attitudes toward sex) does not have the luxury of a brutally honest or physically and emotionally painful acceptance process. There is no filter for the church doors...as I believe it should be. The issue there though is, that people stay for reasons that have nothing to do with the faith.

I know that I am able to tolerate being an outlier because I've been conditioned to make my peace with discomfort. I have no expectations of feelings of belonging in any sphere accept personal relationships. I have always, and likely will always, feel like an alien observer. I don't expect this to come easily to others though, because my life has been a rare one, possibly even moreso because of my personality type than my racial and cultural experiences.

So yes, I do, very much agree with the words Tony Evans has written and I'm hoping reading his book will help me find some peace in this area, because right now, I have little.