I'd been seeing a lot of press in the sources I follow about a new book by Ken Ham and Britt Beemer called "Already Gone," the premise of which is that there is something going on in the church leading to about 2/3 of young people leaving for at least some period of time in their twenties.
My wife and I received our copy today, and let's just say it's a quick read, especially for someone who's been trained in statistics. The first comment; yes, the statistics hold up; it does turn out to be statistically significant, if the data be true, that in various categories, those who attend Sunday School are actually slightly less likely to hold Biblical stands on any variety of issues. It also holds that a great portion of the disagreement by those who leave is about the issue of Creation, and that kids leave the church in middle school or high school--and simply make it official when they go out on their own for college.
Is the work Ham and Beemer started finished? Not quite; here are the statistics for acceptance of premarital sex, for example: 47.7% of non-Sunday school attenders said it was wrong, vs. only 40.8% of attenders. Statistically significant? Absolutely, but the nature of the statistics also demonstrates that there is a larger factor involved.
Hopefully someone picks it up. I do believe as well that Ham and Beemer give a big hint as to the 700 lb gorilla in the background; churches failing to help their members understand the depth and breadth of truly Biblical theology.
The DFL: Bouncing The Rubble Of Rural MN Healthcare
-
Canny observers have been pointing out for years that the DFL protests too
much when it comes to Big Pharma. Particularly Angie Craig, who perennially
face...
9 hours ago
12 comments:
They leave over the issue of creation? Does it go into anymore detail than that?
Because if they're leaving because science is about "facts" and religion is "wishful thinking", then they are very foolish indeed. Science and reason have oversold themselves and simply can't deliver. They are both important and necessary aspects of God's creation, but society becomes cruel farce when they are elevated above God.
Oh, and the church should probably take some blame for being so wishy-washy and weak about such things.
i think the issue of creation is an excuse because its the easiest to point the finger at.
i agree though, that bible churches do not teach a proper, coherent theology. i know they have one, somewhere, but very few of their faithful can explain it without sounding stupid or simplton.
"just trust in Christ" is not theology.
neither is "believe and you'll be saved".
i know, there are thousands of 'bible' denominations to point the finger as if it pertains to all.
and i dont mean to be doing that.
but as a former fundementalist worshipper, i honestly cant tell you what biblical theology is.
and counteless discussions and debates with my friends didnt make it any clearer.
I think Gino has a good point. Creation issues may just be the flashpoint that gets hit hardest "out in the world," but giving up on creation is definitely more of a symptom of not having an overall good understanding of the faith -- beyond a few slogans as Gino suggests.
I just hope nobody looks at this book and decides that the remedy is more church seminars featuring poorly argued creationism a la the now jailed Dr. Dino and that ilk. Few things make me more uncomfortable than kids taught to "defend their faith" based on a lot of logical fallacies, misused evidence, and historical inaccuracy. I feel like their teachers are just painting gigantic targets on their foreheads. I would MUCH rather have a kid say, out of firm conviction, "I'm not sure I can defend this but I'm going to trust that the Bible is true" than come out with some of the claptrap arguments that pass for creation apologetics in some quarters. (And it could be said that this is analogous to the way kids are too frequently taught about their faith, also.) And I say this as someone who is definitely YEC and believes that there IS a lot of good, solid stuff out there supporting it.
pentamom: YEC? help me out here, i'm not getting it.
YEC= Young earth creationist.
Gino, you make a good point, and I wish it were confined only to "my" side of the divide between (so to speak) Geneva (or Westminster, or whatever) and Rome. I'm sure you could point to many members of the Catholic church as well who would have a lot of trouble describing a coherent theology.
Which would seem to indicate that I've got to spend more time in this myself!
Just a thought, those who have elevated science and reason to such heady heights are rarely called on their own inconsistencies and logical fallacies. I think we should embrace science, but insist on a strict definition of what that means. Is it observable, repeatable, predictable?
As for reason, is someone actually using it? Or are they using the idea of it as a cudgel? I think a lot of two-bit minds use "reason" as some kind of God against whom one cannot argue (even with reason!) Such people need to be confronted with the logical ends of their belief system. I think most of them would be exposed as narcissistic anti-nomians.
bubba: yes, i'd say most catholics forget the theology they are taught as youngsters. i know i did. big time.
i remembered just enough to make the trek back, but found myself a babe in the woods once i got there.
catholic/orthodox theology is rife with subleties, where the discussions can be as endless as you want them to be.
you can take two scholars from the Vatican and they will hold a decades long discussion on some minutae that only few from their status can even comprehend, let alone be able to even be aware the topic exists.
YEC: is that saying the whole creation is only 6000yrs old?
bubba: where do you stand on this?
I tend towards the young earth position. Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research have produced a lot of evidence that typical "evidences" for an old earth actually isn't nearly as strong as you would think. Fossilized shoes & hams, quick deposition of multiple layers at Mt. St. Helens, etc..
I lean toward the interpretation that the creation is ~6000 (though could stand for a 100% or so margin of error based on potential misunderstandings of chronologies and etc.) but my bottom line position is that it cannot be ruled out that the creation is ~6000 years old until someone convinces me that scripture doesn't positively say that it is -- and it appears to me that it says that it is.
Leaving aside the issue of why, as to which I wouldn't know, I'm curious whether people here agree that the underlying statistic is true. Is it consistent with your experience to say that about two-thirds of young people who were brought up to be active in their church are taking a hiatus from church attendance?
Marza--it's a bit lower in some of the churches I've been a part of, a bit higher in others. I do know that when I was back in college, it was true that a disturbingly high portion of young people fell away for a time.
I hope you're right that it's not really that bad; sometimes reality is a bit different from a sample, or way different. That said, what percentage is acceptable.
I am currently exploring what we can do in our Churches to address the "doctrine" thing. I had no real doctrine, until I met a pastor who practiced expository preaching. I think expository learning might be the key to good doctrine, but the learning curve can be real steep for the beginner.
Post a Comment