I am linking hereto an article that has been making the rounds in the Christian corner of the
interwebs. I recommend that you read it or at least browse it in order to have
my comments make sense.
Articles like this
have really started to bother me. I don't want to impute bad motives to the
author or anything like that. At one time in my life I would have really
enjoyed an article like this. I enjoy many things I get to nod along knowingly
to, as if I am the bearer of some profound insight somehow shared by the
author. But now they feel too out of touch and too simple, much like the
arguments of many Republicans in the wake of the last election: it is not our
policies that are turning people away, but our packaging! Maybe if Marco Rubio
says the same old stuff Latinos will vote for us in droves. Christians fall
into this same trap. We can think: maybe it is not that Christian doctrine is
really, really hard to swallow and follow in our instant gratification,
intensely individualistic, insanely privileged world, but that we are doing
some easily correctable thing wrong that once we correct will lead to massive
revival. But Christian doctrine is divisive and unsettling. It requires us to
believe things absolutely unpalatable to our culture. And once kids raised in
the church get out and fully immersed in that culture, this reality can become
too much to bear.
Articles like this
are indicative of what Kenneth Stewart of Covenant Seminary recently called evangelicalism's
"liturgical inferiority complex." We don't have all of the fancy
ritual of other, older denominations and now that we are in a brief zeitgeist
where older and liturgical is hipper than newer and free-flowing we are
scrambling to keep up and reconsidering traditions jettisoned recently by the
seeker sensitive movement.
Stewart's example was the recent move by many lower church evangelicals to
embrace Lent. I like the tradition of Lent, and generally practice some form of
mild observance, but it is not the ancient practice its advocates make it out
to be and uneducated laity believe it to be. Neither is it based on anything
strictly Biblical. This doesn't mean it is wrong to celebrate Lent, merely
wrong to act as if the majority of evangelicals who do not observe the season
are somehow deficient for refraining from an extrabiblical tradition. We may
wish for the return of liturgy to the church, but there is nothing inherently
Biblical about liturgy. One can appreciate Cranmer's Book of Common
Prayer or the Westminster Catechism,
but if one actually takes seriously the prayers and claims in the liturgical
works, the last thing it ought to make one is proud.
Furthermore, this
author sort of blithely accepts that Christian youth who leave the church when
they march off into the gaping maw of the university do so because they were
unprepared by their parents and their church. "Train a child in the way
that he shall go and when he is old he will not depart from it," is a
proverb, not doctrine. Want proof? How did the kids of the guy who wrote this
proverb turn out? Some kids will fall away. Most will not fall away because
they read Nietzsche and now harbor deep theological reservations about Biblical
Christianity, but because they want to have sex and get drunk without feeling
guilty. There are exceptions, but that is the rule.
Also, #10 and #9 on
this list are directly the result of a previous movement to make church more
attractive to kids, by the previous generation of evangelical parents that were
freaked out when their kids started leaving the church. In other words, stuff
gets complicated when your goal becomes not to lose the kids. One generation
tends toward severer discipline, the other towards entertainment, both with the
same goal in mind. Raising kids on a diet of grace, as this author recommends,
is great as long as you understand (and teach them) that grace binds as well as
frees. God does care how we act, even though we are saved through his favor
alone. I hate how carelessly character and good works are dismissed by these
purveyors of grace as if conduct no longer matters. Of course a tally sheet
shouldn't be kept at youth group to keep track of how good each individual is
doing in arbitrary categories, but there ought to be accountability, especially
with high schoolers. I am not yet far enough removed from high school to forget
that high school aged people are very stupid. Even the smart ones.
I agree with you in principle. However, the original article makes some good points. My own wavering faith was linked in large part to the fact that my church wouldn't or couldn't answer the hard life questions. And my church also certainly focused on "keeping" us rather than equipping us to deal with the world. Was there more to my questioning of faith? Absolutely. Did the church I grew up in lend to it? Oh yes.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comment, Nina. And, I agree. I have been in many churches that have done silly stuff and taught ridiculous things. And that can be alienating, but when it came down to it, I knew enough of the gospel that I was accountable for my own actions, actual faults of my church aside. My point isn't that the church doesn't let people down, but that disaffected college kids may not be the best source for why people leave. And the content of the post I refer back to is also a bit too blanket in its condemnation of practices that are nowhere near universal.
ReplyDelete