Growing Out of Faith

While I was home I got a chance to go to church college group for a couple weeks. The group discussions we had are one of the things that I miss the most about being away from home. One of the discussions was concerning the results of a recent Barna Group poll showing the majority of young adults who attended church in their teens cease to continue church attendance in their 20's. This was a particularly interesting topic to me considering my location and environment which I can confirm the poll's results in my sphere of influence.

According to the survey 81% of teens have attended some sort of church for a period of 2 months or more. From face value that is an awesome progress report. Youth workers of today are reaching the future generation. Too bad the study didn't just provide some encouraging information that we can quantitatively see that we are making a difference. The survey also reports 61% of now twenty-somethings who were engaged in church are now disengaged. Even more, only 20% of the twenty-somethings polled have maintained their level of spiritual activity consistent with their high school days.

Before I get too far on the statistics I find it necessary to point out that these results were found over the course of sample surveys for the last 5 years interviewing more than 22,000 adults, 3500 twenty-somethings, and 2100 teens. I know statistics can be manipulated to express anyone's agenda, I think the most important thing we can consider for ourselves when questioning the data is, "How true is this around those I know?” I know in my situation it is seems right on par. I can't tell you how many people I have encountered in my experiences that had once been active in church activities in their youth, some even being leaders in the youth groups, but now do not even attend chapel services at all. The reasons are various, be it faith is not something they want the military to dip their hands into or church is something they do at home.

I don't expect to claim there is a clear formula as to why the young adults of today stop attending church; there are too many variables to account for. What can be addressed are issues or methods that might have better success at keeping people active in the church. I also wish to make clear that by no means does one attending church show or define their devoutness to the faith. I believe it is so important to be active in a Christian community of some sort for two reasons: teamwork at any task is more effective and Christianity is not meant to be practiced in isolation. Hopefully, the goal of active Christians is to introduce people to Christ. This is a very trying task and is much more difficult to do so without a support structure or encouragement that ought to come from a church.

I think one of the most contributing factors as to why there is such a dip in church attendance is how teens are prepared spiritually as adults. For some reason in the recent 40 years of history, so little is expected of the 18-24 age group that most don't bother to develop themselves. I understand the importance of further education, but remember that for the majority of civilizations people were fully fledged adults by 18 if not earlier. Today, as I hold similar bias, an 18 year old is barely getting started with life. I know of more than a couple people that I have wondered "Did your mommy know you're in the Army?"

I think one of the first steps that ought to be taken is to empower the young adults. If today's young adults realized what they are capable of great things will happen. It would not be a stretch to say the only thing society expects from the 18-24 age range is to continue education or start a career. Not bad expectations but with it comes the impression that they are not expected to accomplish anything grand until they are complete in the final form of education. With such an expectation the majority of the nation's young adults express themselves accordingly. I think that is one of the main reasons why there is so much carefree drunkenness and promiscuity. This suggestion is more to combat the overall culture war, not so much to keep the pews filled.

Consider the factors that dramatically change upon entering the young adult stage. Most people leave home, be it college, just moving out, military, Peace Corps or some other adventure. Just from that point there are huge changes that have great influence as to which direction a person might choose to live. Leaving high school is huge in itself. Education is likely to continue, however, the method of hand-holding and minute-by-minute structure is gone. Leaving home reduces the influence parents have by proximity. The sphere of friends is also likely to change due to distance. For those that did attend church in their teens, they are no longer in the high school group. That looks to be if not all almost all the support structures that had existed in the young person's life for the previous years of development.

Venturing into the new world with so much freedom most young people are not prepared for so much change so radically when the only thing that is familiar is themselves. Is it easier to navigate from high school student to adult with or without a map and a start point? Those who leave home and don't know who they are do just that. This is why I think it is so important high schoolers define who they are when the support exists so they don't get defined by the pressures around them when those pressures outweigh their support structure. I know for myself one of the main reasons I have been able to hold my ground is because I know who I am and who I want to be. I knew this before I entered the military, seeing so many people who don't know who they are around me is a regular recipe for disaster.

Once the youth of today know who and what they are I think the next step is to answer their questions. Sadly, the church has been failing miserably to answer their questions. I don't think the lack of answers is limited to the youth, other polls I have seen are showing an overall decrease in church attendance in all age groups. The most logical conclusion why such a large demographic of people would cease attendance is that they don't see a relevance to continue attending. Life is a busy thing so if time will be invested in something like church it had better be worth it, if not why waste their time? How many of us have attended church for a decent period of time and been unsatisfied or unaffected by the experience?

How many topics are there that the culture talks about almost constantly but the church remains silent? Granted some churches will make a stance but even fewer will explain why. Why does the Bible speak against premarital sex and homosexuality? What does it mean by sexual immorality? Is evolution true? Is the Bible reliable? Is there Truth? How do we know what is right and wrong? These are just a few of the many that either took years of studying to find the answer or took years for the answer to come to me. I know that for some of the most meaningful answers it is more than the concept that must be conveyed but a heart ready to accept the answer. Answers discovered always have more meaning than answers explained. That does not mean those of us who know the answers can't help guide those searching in the right direction.

I am more than aware a Sunday morning sermon can only cover so much to reach so many people, the real change happens in small groups. I suppose this will count as a shout out to that every mature Christian should lead some kind of small group. There is always the difficulty of getting the skeptical to invest even more time than they already do in something as personal as a small group can be. The nice thing about a church service, it is easy to get lost. I can attend church for years without ever opening up to someone; in fact I did it for years. There is the common small talk but that is on the similar level of "how are you doing?" and we all know what that really means. For some the impersonal side of the corporate church is all they know. There is a general fear in our culture to be real. The most effective thing about small groups is the personal atmosphere present.

What is Truth?

I was laying awake pretty much the whole night from the jet lag cause I just got back to Germany in the recent 24 hours. Needless to say my transition to the time is less than smooth. While I was thinking in my bed amidst uncomfortable silence I gathered thoughts about life and its meaning. Well, not so much the meaning of life for me, I settled was a while ago. However, the significance of Truth in this world, I did come to some interesting thoughts. How do I know Truth exists? How can Truth be known?

I know there is a Truth for two primary reasons. First, I am aware of this thing we call conscience; there is a part of us that knows how things should be. The knowledge of what the world should and ought to be like that I believe to be present in all people is very similar at the most fundamental stages. Typically as we mature our ideas of how things should and should not be gets tainted by our own selfishness and personal interests. While some call that growing up, I think that is us realizing who we are. Upon learning who we are we all choose to live for ourselves or for someone/something else. Secondly, the mere existence of the attitudes of "should" or "should not" instantly implies that there is right and wrong. I'll explain that more in the following paragraphs. The biblical reason for knowing Truth exists is from Romans 1:18-20, although it does not say Truth in its exact words but it describes it quiet clearly.

Since I made such a bold pronunciation that there is Truth I should probably attempt to explain how it can be known. The first point that comes to mind I classify as common sense. Why would there be Truth that cannot be known? After all if there is Truth then there must be a Truth Giver (God), and what is the purpose of having something that cannot be known or utilized? The only option would be a sort of cynical or twisted Truth Giver that likes to treat us like rats running through the maze of life. Good thing I don't believe in such a God that treats the creations like that. Coming to such conclusions about God is not even needed by Scripture. In modern philosophy a similar deduction is known as the Teleological argument, it too points to a caring personal God independently of any religious bias.

The first question I pose to people whom claim to deny Truth is, "How do you tell right from wrong?" The answer is usually somewhere between "I decide" or "based on what society holds to be right or wrong", although many people disguise their explanations in fancier terms I have yet to encounter a relativist that has an answer that cannot be answered by the following points. The only other answer to "what is right and wrong?" that people might claim is there is no such thing.

For those who claim to hold to their own truth the mere ownership proves their definition to be false. By definition, truth is independent of what it is applied to. In English, if I hold to my own personal truth then my truth has no authority over anything or anyone including myself. The truth I might pronounce can only apply to what I control, which is nothing. Since I can change my own truth then I don't even abide by my own reality. Aside from a personal truth holding no authority, it is very easily false. I can claim it is my truth that the earth is not round. However, there are a number of scientific methods that can prove my truth to be false. One can claim anything as truth, whether it can be verified as true is completely different.

For those who claim their truth to come from society, which very few actually do, all one needs is history. What society values changes as time passes. Truth is static, it does not change. This is mostly true of any developed nation from which one would most likely encounter people in such a mind set. For the United States the Dred Scott case was not one of the most proud moments in modern history. For the Supreme Court to pronounce an African American a non-person is rather outrageous in today's worldview. However, it is rather common in today's worldview to pronounce an unborn child a non-person; a view which taken back 100 years ago would be seen to be just as absurd as we see Mr. Scott’s judgment. Aside from a society's inconsistency in what is right and wrong, the authority might apply only to members of the specific society. For example, the ethnic cleansing between the Hutus and Tutsies in Rwanda shows that what is acceptable to one society is not necessarily acceptable to another. This might be an extreme example, but it is the extreme examples that such logical flaws which also scream the loudest.

For those who are willing to claim there is no such thing as right or wrong, they are either in denial or simply trying to take the logical upper hand by throwing a curve ball. If they are in denial simply violate some commonly held principles to prove to them that they do indeed believe in right or wrong. Suppose Bob pronounces there is no right or wrong, I therefore proceed to take his TV, unplug it from the wall and load it into my vehicle. I continue this process until Bob makes an objection, which unless he has sworn off personal property; he will do at some point. When questioned what I am doing I reply that I am taking his stuff. The natural reaction will be one of passionate objection, Bob will likely then claim that is not right! Point proven, now I must unload Bob's possessions from my car. In the event that he has sworn off personal property figure out something that he holds dear and violate it. It is upon violation of our rights and values people are most clear of what we do value and believe.