Christianity

Notes From the Tilt-a-Whirl

Brett McCracken — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 19:10:09 -0800

N.D. Wilson’s new “bookumentary” DVD, Notes From the Tilt-a-Whirl, is sort of like the Waking Life of Christian apologetics films. And by that I mean, it’s full of awe, curiosity, philosophizing, and a lot of talking about ideas. Like the contemplative films of Richard Linklater (Waking Life, Before Sunrise, Before Sunset), Wilson’s film–inspired by his 2009 book of the same title–is heavy on heady, talky vignettes. It’s essentially a philosophy/apologetics education condensed into a series of 3-4 minute soliloquies and poetic riffs on huge ideas, packaged amidst images of beauty and a liturgical ambience.

I was somewhat skeptical going in to Tilt-a-Whirl; mostly because “Christian films” of any sort are almost always a let down. But this was a pleasant surprise–a genuinely compelling, well-made film that never feels false or inauthentic and actually leaves us with insights to ponder and stirs our hearts and minds toward God.

Tilt-a-Whirl advertises itself as “A cinematic treatment of a worldview. A poet live in concert. A motion picture sermon. VH1 Storytellers meets Planet Earth. 60 Minutes meets Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.”

All of those are accurate. It’s a refreshingly orignal thing–a documentary of sorts, a visual essay, an apologetics companion piece to The Tree of Life (though Malick would dislike Wilson’s dismissal of Heidegger). It’s the Kanye West Twitter feed of hyper-literate Reformed philosophy.

I also like the way Books and Culture described the film:

Imagine 51 minutes of an earthier Nooma video infused with an ethos of postmillennial confidence and injected with the steroids of Christian orthodoxy and Chestertonian Orthodoxy. Ponder all possible manifestations of “A Portrait of the Kuyperian Artist as a Young Apologist.”

Rob Bell’s Nooma videos are probably its closest cousin in terms of genre; yet it must be acknowledged that there are more original insights in any given 90 seconds of Tilt-a-Whirl than in the entire Nooma series.

Wilson tackles a wide array of topics, mostly having to do with God–as creator, as artist, as gardener, as judge. He’s at his best when talking about the “problem” of evil and putting man in his place while exalting God. I especially resonated and agreed with Wilson on his suggestion that evil has a purpose if creation is seen as God’s ultimate artistic masterpiece: “If we look at the world as art, suddenly tension makes sense,” says Wilson. “God is after a great story, and great stories require tension; great stories require trial and hardship; great stories require characters to grow. … Why does God allow evil and things which displease him in his story? So that they can be defeated.”

If you’re someone who likes to think about and discuss big ideas about God and existence, this film is for you. Watch it in groups, Bible studies, or on your own; I guarantee it will provoke something–whether discussion, debate, disgust, or worship.

Is the GOP Anti-Science?

Sean McDowell — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 07:46:25 -0800

The GOP is dogmatically anti-science. They reject the conclusions of manmade global warming, which has been accepted by virtually all scientists. And they deny the overwhelming evidence of evolution. They are anti-science, anti-knowledge, and anti-progress. The possibility of an anti-science candidate getting elected to the White House is a terrifying prospect for it would put our economic, environmental, and political state into potential disaster. For the sake of the next generation, please don’t elect such a candidate!

If you believe this rendition, it’s likely you’ve been following the incessant portrayal of the GOP in the media. Consider a few recent headlines: “Republicans Against Science,” “Why Republicans Deny Science: The Quest for a Scientific Explanation,” and “Rick Santorum is King of the GOP’s Anti-Science Presidential Candidates.” The list could go on. But the message is clear: the Republican Party is full of ignorant science-deniers who are a threat to the future of America (of course, exception is made for John Huntsman, who has tried to cast himself as the pro-science Republican alternative by accepting evolution and manmade global warming).

Sure, more Republicans are skeptical of evolution and man-made global warming than Democrats. But why does this make them “anti-science”? Interestingly, studies show that anti-vaccine sentiment is higher in progressive areas such as Washington, Vermont, and Oregon. Arguably, the results of rejecting vaccines can be far more disastrous than rejecting evolution. So, why doesn’t this make Democrats anti-science? Do I smell a double-standard?

Let me begin with a qualifier. My purpose in writing this is not specifically to defend the GOP. I have not ever publicly endorsed a candidate for any party and I probably never will. This is not a political blog, although it clearly has political implications. My purpose is to challenge poor thinking about science. If the GOP critiqued Democrats for being anti-science with the same arguments, I would defend the Democrats. My purpose is to challenge the assumption that rejecting a particular scientific theory is akin to being anti-science.

My real question is why doubting evolution makes one anti-science in the first place. Why can’t someone be pro-science yet skeptical of evolution? Maybe the evolution-skeptic just thinks the evidence is lacking. It’s never been clear to me why doubting evolution automatically disqualifies someone from being pro-science. The skeptic may reject the consensus, but again, why does that make one anti-science? After all, even Darwin rejected the scientific consensus of his day. Jurassic Park author Michael Crichton said it best:

“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had…The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with consensus…If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”

Crichton makes a powerful point—consensus is often claimed to avoid debate. That’s why the claim is incessantly made that the evidence for evolution is “overwhelming.” You may be tempted to think that the debate over evolution has been settled. But that may be premature. Yes, a majority of scientists do accept evolution, but a growing number of Ph.D. scientists from leading universities such as Harvard, Princeton, UC Berkeley, and the University of Moscow have come to doubt the efficacy of Darwinian evolution to account for the variety and complexity of life on earth. Does this make them anti-science? Of course not! Only someone blindly committed to a worldview would suggest so. These scientists value science—they just understand the facts differently.

The merits of evolution are actually irrelevant to my point. Maybe Darwin was right. Maybe Darwin was wrong. But it certainly doesn’t follow that someone who doubts his theory is automatically “anti-science.” In fact, such a claim is avowedly anti-science, for scientists are supposed to challenge the status quo and follow the evidence wherever it leads!

In a New York Times column titled, “Republicans Against Science,” Paul Krugman says, “Mr. Perry, the governor of Texas, recently made headlines by dismissing evolution as ‘just a theory,’ one that has ‘got some gaps in it’ — an observation that will come as news to the vast majority of biologists.” The majority of biologists do accept evolution. But is truth determined by numbers? Suggesting so is only meant to silence critics and avoid debate. Even if the majority of scientists would be surprised that evolution has “some gaps in it,” as Krugman suggests, why would that make skeptics anti-science?

Some Republicans may be anti-science. But so may some Democrats. Alex Berezow made this point in his recent USA Today column, “GOP may be anti-science, but so are Democrats.” To label an entire party as “anti-science” is mistaken and simplistic. We need to move beyond labels and actually engage the issues. But maybe I’m too naïve. After all, it’s much easier (and effective) to label someone than actually consider their point of view.

How to Beat the January Blues? Don't.

Caroline Ferdinandsen — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 14:00:17 -0800

Sadness comes in all sizes. Sometimes it’s huge and powerful, a villain worthy of a heroic, medical take-down, and other times it’s just a quiet lump in the throat. Sadness can come on gradually or flash like winter lightning. It sets us up for failure, affecting both the body and spirit. It can surely be contagious.

And sometimes sadness is exactly the right thing.

Americans might believe that sadness is the negative detour that keeps us from the unrelenting prosperity and happiness we deserve. We are ashamed of it as though it reveals some weakness, and we attempt to cure it as quickly as it comes. Yet what if the role of sadness firmly belongs in the natural order of things?

So as a tribute to the month that is colder and darker than the rest, I offer some considerations:

Sadness can clear a path to God.

I wish it weren’t so, but grand, happy celebrations can drown out the quiet voice of God. In the darker hours, I listen for him because I need him desperately. Skeptics try to call it a weird psychological crutch, but children of God accept their desperation--and God’s faithful response.

Sadness is truthful.

Every person will grieve in his lifetime. Without it, we are not authentically human. Divorce, death, sickness, and sin--these not only allow for grief, but they require it. Across human history, the story of man includes his honest rituals of grief and despair. Self-medicating cannot bypass the natural order of grief; it merely postpones it.

Sadness is a paradox; it counterbalances joy.

Joy and sorrow are twins. Lebanese writer Kahil Gibran says that “joy and sorrow are inseparable. When one sits alone with you, remember that the other is asleep upon your bed.” Like most opposites, we might not even grasp one without the other. Anyone who has experienced great joy has done so only with sorrow’s help. Surely God allows for both as part of our human experience.

Sadness, when it arises from our sin patterns, is appropriate.

If I screw up, fail miserably, embrace evil, violate the law, or offend my Creator, I pray that I would suffer. Sadness that washes over me because of my stupidity should be expected; without it, I might be taught a lie about truth and consequences. Before I feel sorry for myself in the Valley, I should take inventory of such things.

Sadness awakens compassion.

I recently sat with a woman in great despair who added this footnote to her sadness. “If I ever meet someone who has gone through this,” she vowed, “I will come alongside and wrap them up in my arms. I now understand it.” Unlike pain that comes from sin, some suffering allows us in the months and years to come to bear one another’s burdens. Show me someone whose life is a chronic party, and I’ll show you someone who cannot hoist his brother’s burden. He might not even notice, or worse--if he does, he might not even care.

So, January, do your bluesy, cold, foggy best to bring me down. I’m ready for it.

Darwinism and the Next Generation

Sean McDowell — Fri, 02 Dec 2011 12:15:27 -0800

Recently I was interviewed by Jonathan Morrow for his excellent new book Thinking Christianly (Zondervan, 2011). He asked me about Darwinism as well as reaching the next generation. Here is my brief excerpt. Enjoy!

Jonathan Morrow: It is commonplace to hear about the “overwhelming evidence” for evolution. Have you found this to be the case? Can you talk a little about the role that Darwinism plays in our culture?

Sean McDowell: There’s a well-known joke for lawyers that says when the facts are on your side, argue the facts. However, when you don’t have the facts, use emotion and state your case with absolute certainty. This is precisely what is going on with claims about the “overwhelming evidence” for evolution. We live in an information age, and materialist theories such as Darwinism are slowly going the way of the Dodo. Intelligent design (ID) is on the move. Many Darwinists know this, which is why they focus their primary attacks on ID being religiously motivated or based on ignorance and avoid engaging the actual arguments. But they can ignore the substance for only so long.

People often ask, “Couldn’t God have used evolution?” Certainly. God can create however he wants to. Yet it’s important to remember that Darwin intentionally devised a materialist explanation that excluded God from the process. Nature is the selecting mechanism, not God. If God somehow guided the process of evolution, we are no longer talking about Darwin’s theory but about some form of intelligent design. And if God is not part of the process, then it’s a short step to removing him altogether.

While I have significant reservations about evolution (see my Understanding Intelligent Design with William A. Dembski), my bigger concern is the role Darwinism now plays in society. Evolution has become an ideology. It is the creation myth that justifies the dominant worldview in Western culture — naturalism.

Since evolution is viewed as the “creative” force, then all aspects of nature must be “Darwinized.” Thus, we have books such as Literary Darwinism, Financial Dar- winism, and Evolution and Ethics. Everything, including morality, religious belief, psychology, sexuality, marriage, and more, must be seen from this perspective. These ideas are disseminated to young people through our universities. This is why atheist philosopher Daniel Dennett called Darwinism a “universal acid.” He’s right. If evolution were true, then everything demands a Darwinian explanation. But if evolution were false, then this would be a colossal mistake.

There is a temptation to avoid this controversial topic in the church. Why not just talk about Jesus? Remember, the Christian story makes sense only if we were created by God and then rebelled. Otherwise, what’s the need for a Savior?

Belief in God as the Creator is not simply blind “religious” faith but something we can know to be true (Psalm 19:1–2). I’ve seen young people come alive when they discover the evidence for intelligent design. It gives us confidence in our faith as well as in the God of the Scriptures. This is not a truth we simply store away in our minds, but one that transforms how we think about ourselves and other people. We really are made in the image of God, who loves us and has a plan for our lives. We can see the divine fingerprint from the tiniest cell to the depths of the universe.

Jonathan: From your perspective as a Christian high school teacher who also speaks to thousands of students each year, how well prepared do you think students are to leave our churches and live out their faith in college and beyond?

Sean: This question is the driving force of my ministry. We’ve all heard the statistics of young people leaving their faith in college, and it rightly concerns us. There may not be a silver bullet to fix this problem, but there are some areas which we must address.

Part of the problem is that the worldviews of this churched generation are largely unbiblical. According to the National Study of Youth and Religion, 18 percent of conservative Protestant youth have either a deistic or pantheistic view of God, 48 percent believe many religions may be true, and 42 percent are not assured of the existence of evil spirits. We need to teach substance. But we must connect this truth to their lives and relationships.

Young people are also relationally hurting. Many are lonely, depressed, and searching for real meaning. It’s difficult for young people who struggle with broken relationships and have emotional baggage to develop a biblical worldview. Many kids leave the church because they never built healthy relationships with their parents or other Christian adults. If we want to teach the biblical worldview effectively, we must first help kids get emotionally healthy.

This is why I deeply believe in mentoring. Jesus was a mentor. My hope is that mentoring will become as normal in the church in the future as small groups are today. Young people simply cannot survive temptations and intellectual challenges without caring, involved adults coming alongside to guide them.

Sports and Christianity

Stan Jantz — Wed, 23 Nov 2011 12:44:38 -0800

Sports and Christianity have been linked since New Testament times. The apostle Paul encouraged first century believers to "run in such a way as to get the prize" (1 Corinthians 9:24). In the twenty centuries since then, countless numbers of athletes from various sports have taken Paul's advice quite literally, both on and off the field of play, and many have openly acknowledged their belief in Christ.

In fact, there are an astonishing number of professional atheletes who are publicly professing their faith in one way or another. And two of them--Tim Tebow, quarterback of the Denver Broncos, and Los Angeles Doger pitching ace Clayton Kershaw--are getting a lot of attention from the media, albeit for different reasons. These two 23-year-olds are also demonstrating that there's no "one size fits all" approach to telling the watching world that you're a Christian.

If you don't know about Tim Tebow, you must either be sports-averse or you hate football, because he is by all accounts the most popular athlete in the world right now--if you measure popularity by the number of words being written by sports commentators and social pundits. It's not enough that the Broncos' starting quarterback plays an unorthodox style of professional football, or that he has this knack for willing his team to win with last-minute drives. He is also quite deliberate and demonstrative when it comes to giving credit to God for his successes on the field. "Tebowing" is a new word in the English lexicon intended to describe (somewhat sarcastically) the kind of prayerful position Tim Tebow assumes after every touchdown.

By contrast, Clayton Kershaw, who was just given the Cy Young Award as the best pitcher in the National League--doesn't engage in Tebowing. I don't think he even extends his index finger to the sky after winning a game. But that doesn't mean Kershaw is ashamed of the gospel or that he's trying to appease his teammates by keeping his light under the proverbial bushel. To the contrary, Clayton and his wife, Ellen, are intentional about showing and sharing God's love by supporting orphans in Zambia through a ministry called Arise Africa. For the Kershaws, building a relationship with God means building solid relationships with others and becoming givers from the start. "I want every pitch and every batter I face to be about something more than a game," he says.

Whether or not you follow sports, I would encourage you to embrace the stories and the testimonies of these two outstanding young men. In particular if you have youngsters at home, share the stories of Tim Tebow and Clayton Kershaw. God is using these talented athletes in different ways to bring glory to Himself and relief to His world. We can all learn a lot from each of them, even if their sports and their styles are vastly different.

You can start by getting their books. Through My Eyes (HarperOne 2011) is Tim Tebow's story, and it's a well-written national bestseller (as you would expect). Arise (Regal 2012) is Clayton and Ellen's book, due out in January. Both books will inspire and remind you that it's our mandate as followers of Christ to "press on toward the goal to win the prize" for which God has called us heavenward (Philippians 3:14).

Trusting God Instead of Self

Dave Sterrett — Tue, 08 Nov 2011 20:16:33 -0800

In my book, Why Trust Jesus?, I refer to Augustine’s journey and wrestle with trust, but as I have been taking a course this semester at the University of Dallas with Dr. William Frank, I decided to come back and revisit that theme of trust. I still agree with what I wrote in my book, Why Trust Jesus? but I wanted share another one of my short papers that I wrote for this class. I will eventually submit a couple more papers on this Conversant blog about Augustine. If you have read the Confessions multiple times or are brand new in studying Augustine, please write your comments and let me know what you have observed in the text.

In Book VIII of Confessions, Augustine recollects the experience of internal turmoil, indecisiveness, self -knowledge, and temptation of old memories and habits. Augustine encounters Lady Continence, urging him to trust God. Throughout this eighth book, we see multiple pictures and stories, each in its unique way, reinforcing one of this book’s main themes of trusting God rather than self. As Continence speaks, trust seems to be such a simple act, but complex emotions including fear, lust and pride are at stake. Continence challenges, Augustine, "Why do you stand on yourself, and thus stand not at all? Cast yourself on him. Have no fear. He will not draw back and let you fall. Cast yourself trustfully on him: he will receive you and he will heal you.”[1] Trusting God, specifically through Jesus Christ, was included in the final passage that brought a peaceful light streaming into Augustine’s soul. “Not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and impurities, not in strife, and envying; but put you on the Lord Jesus Chris, and make not provision for the flesh in its concupiscence.”[2]

Contrary to trusting God, trusting in self could include the comfortable dependence on temporary pleasures and lusts of flesh, like “drunkenness,” or lust of the eyes, “impurities” or the pride of life, such as “envy.” The Bishop Augustine reflecting on this encounter with the lady of continence, says, “hosts of youths, men and women of every age, grace widows and aged virgins…were born of you, O Lord, her spouse.”[3] She smiles at the young Augustine and says, “Cannot you do what these youths and these maidens do?”[4] This challenge not only challenges the young Augustine to consider the simple of faith of uneducated, but also seems to be climatic of these previous stories in the book that the Bishop Augustine has told.

Earlier in the book, Augustine recalled how Simplicianus, who was mentor of Ambrose, told Augustine a story about Victorinus. The story of Victorinus was the first of several stories of showing how a person, with influence in the eyes of the world, at one point, gave up trust in self to “cast themselves trustfully on God.”[5] James O’Donnell’s summarizes the book: “Book Eight, consists almost entirely of a series of specific recalled episodes; the first two (conversations with Simplicianus and Ponticianus) containing embedded narratives of other conversation stories, the third (the garden scene) being Augustine’s own conversion story.” [6]

Victorinus was a Roman rhetorician, with wider fame than Augustine. For a while, Victorinus was convinced intellectually that Christianity was true, but did not want to submit his will and trust to the worship of the Holy Eucharist. Finally he submitted and made a public profession of faith. Previously, Augustine wrote on his own intellectual conversation, but the conversion of the heart, includes a decision of trust. The older bishop Augustine now sees the similarity of both conversion stories of Victorinus and himself. O’Donnell writes, “Nowhere in book eight, does Augustine offer the slightest suggestion that he had any remaining intellectual doubts about Christianity.”[7] This indicates that the purpose of this book is to show the will of decision, the attitude of the heart and surrender of trust.

Augustine references multiple times, “the world.” Concerning his contemplation of Victorinus, he mentions, “Thus by the burdens of this world I was sweetly weighed down, just as a man often is in sleep.”[8] As Augustine mentions “world” and “self,” he seems to be indicating a spiritual dimension. According to Augustine, “self” is not just the physical, materialistic body of Manichaeism. Neither is the “world” always, purely the physical world. It is true that Augustine’s struggle was with the material world to some extent, as he recollects his transition from Manichaeism to the ideas of Neo-Platonism. He recalls Platonism persuading his mind away from the philosophical materialism of Manichaeism. However, Augustine, who references St. Paul’s letters of Romans and Ephesians throughout this books, wrote, “Thus I understood from my own experience what I had read, how ‘the flesh lusts against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh.’”[9]

As Augustine’s battle is not entirely the physical world (though the physical can be included), he seems to be referring to the world defined by St. John in 1 John 2:15-17. Earlier, the Bishop Augustine had referenced, St. John who wrote, “Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in them. For everything in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—comes not from the Father but from the world. The world and its desires pass away, but whoever does the will of God lives forever.”[10] It seems that St. John, whom Augustine alludes, was bringing a clarification in terms, that the world does not mean just the physical world, rather than the ‘lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes and pride of life.’” Otherwise St. John (and Augustine) would seem to be contradicting himself, in his gospel account of Christ. John wrote, “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”[11] So the “world” is not merely physical, but can also include the soul’s inward desires and choices towards lust and pride.

Next Augustine has a conversation with Ponticianus. Ponticianus speaks of the courtiers of Trier who gave up everything that had to follow God. He references the influence of the men reading Anthony, the Egyptian monk, who grew up in wealth yet forsook it. Carl Vaught says, “Augustine’s shame intensifies as Ponticianus continues to speak, and hidden dimensions of himself of which he has been unaware for so long begin to emerge from behind his back. When his friend has finished his story and leaves Augustine standing in the garden with Alypius, the young Rhetorician begins to talk to himself. He lashes his soul to make it follow his will; and the ethical side of himself no longer winks at his sin (8.7.18). Yet in this moment of perplexity and indecision, he continues to turn away from the transformation he seeks.”[12]

Augustine has wanted success has a rhetorician, yet he is still holding to not only pride, but specifically lust. It was not that anything was wrong specifically, intrinsically with the material goods of this world including bodies and possessions, but Augustine, must as Continence says himself trustfully on God. This indicates Augustine no longer trusting finite goods, nor trusting his own false infinitude. Collin Starnes says, “The problem with these finite goods was simply that they were finite. The difficulty was not that nature was evil as such, but its goods were temporal and limited and in this way they were inadequate to his rational desire for the eternal and infinite good.”[13] Starnes adds, “Sexual desires were the main thing that held him in the world and so the forms in which he saw Continence were examples of sexual chastity. As opposed to nature’s way which urged Augustine to an infinite pursuit of finite goods, Continence (=the church) invited him to follow a single way to the infinite good.”[14] In chapter twelve, soon after hearing the voice a child, Augustine will think again about Anthony forsaking all earthly pursuits to trust that he will have treasure in heaven.

Augustine believed that Christianity is true, but he knew that he had to surrender his trust just like Anthony and the others in this book of VIII. Augustine opened the book, and the chapter in which his eyes fell told him to put on Christ and make no provision for the flesh. Thus, Augustine finally submitted to the words of continence, to not stand on his own self, but to cast himself trustfully on God.

[1] Confessions 8.11.27

[2] Romans 13:14 cited, Confessions 8.12.29

[3] Confessions 8.11.27

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] James O’Donnell, Augustine’s Confessions, Vol. III. Commentary, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992), 3.

[7] James O’Donnell, Augustine’s Confessions, Vol. III. Commentary, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992), 8.

[8] Confessions, 8.5.2

[9] Ibid.

[10] 1 John 2:15-17 NIV

[11] John 3:16 NIV

[12] Carl G. Vaught, Encounters with God in Augustine’s Confessions, Books VII-IX, (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2004), 84.

[13] Colin Starnes, Augustine’s Conversion, (Waterloo: Wilfried Laurier University Press, 1990), 230-231.

[14] Starnes, 231.

Building a Sticky Faith

Sean McDowell — Tue, 08 Nov 2011 11:43:55 -0800

For those who care about the faith of the next generation, the book Sticky Faith is a must read. Youth experts Kara Powell and Chap Clark record the findings of the "College Transition Project,” which is a six-year research study of over 500 graduating seniors. Here is their stated goal: “To better understand the dynamics of youth group graduates’ transition to college, and to pinpoint the steps that leaders, churches, parents, and seniors themselves can take to help students stay on the Sticky Faith path” (18).

According to their research, between 40 and 50 percent of kids who graduate from a church or youth group will fail to stick with their faith in college. Only 20 percent of those who left the faith planned to. That means 80 percent of those who abandoned the faith were planning to stick with it. On the positive side, they estimate that between 30 and 60 percent return in their late twenties. But this still means between 40 and 70 percent of students who leave their faith never return.

Powell and Clark make a few initial points I found particularly helpful. First, parents influence the faith of students more than anyone (or anything) else: “More than even your support, its who you are that shapes your kid” (21). My research and experience as a teacher confirms that this is true. Second, there is no sticky faith bullet. There is no single reason why kids leave and no single reason that will make them stay. Young people are complex and their faith is influenced by a host of factors.

The core of building a sticky faith, say Powell and Clark, is helping kids develop a clear and honest understanding of the gospel and biblical faith. Sadly, most Christian kids understand the gospel in terms of what we do. We do go to church, read our Bibles, and pray, and we do not watch the wrong movies, cuss, be sexually active, drink, or talk back. Yet this misses the core of biblical faith, which involves trusting God (John 6:28-29). Whether they are doing homework assignments, serving the poor, choosing a college, or responding to a bully, our role with the next generation is to help them genuinely trust God in all they do. Instead of giving simple answers when problems arise, we ought to ask the simple question, “How can we trust God in this situation?”

One of the most powerful parts of Sticky Faith was the emphasis on having conversations with students about faith (not lectures!) Sadly, only 12 percent of mothers and five percent of fathers have regular conversations with their kids about faith. Creating space for genuine conversations about God and faith is one of the most helpful steps we can take to help students build a lasting faith. As a teacher, I give my students assignments that require they engage with their parents about important theological issues. The more we talk with our students about faith, and the more we foster conversation with other significant adults, the better chance they will have of sticking with it.

Here are a few of the practical things Powell and Clark found in their research about Sticky Faith:

§ Kids who left the faith report having questions about faith in early adolescence that were ignored by significant adults (parents, pastor, teacher).

§ A factor causing kids to shelve their faith is the segregation of kids and adults in church. Kids who attend church-wide services are more likely to keep their faith.

§ The more kids serve and build relationships with younger children the more likely they are to hang on to their faith.

§ Short-term mission trips seem to have little impact on the lasting faith of young people (they are not more likely to give to the poor or become long-term missionaries).

§ The more students feel prepared for college the more likely their faith is to grow.

Sticky Faith is a powerful book. That’s why I recommend picking up a copy, studying it, and applying it to your own kids or the kids you work with. There is just one key point I wish they had included—the importance of apologetics in preparing this generation. By apologetics I don’t mean arguing about faith. Apologetics is also not about providing pat answers for complex issues. It involves the biblical command to respectfully give reasons for what we believe (e.g., 1 Peter 3:15). As David Kinnaman points out in UnChristian, one of the reasons we are losing a generation is that we are not teaching them how to think. I have seen apologetics help many students develop a sticky faith beyond youth group. And I have seen many kids without apologetics training lose their faith.

As I was writing this blog on a plane to Denver, a young man next to me sparked up a conversation. He proceeded to share how he grew up going to a Baptist church in Ireland. He left his faith when his college anthropology professor tore into Christianity. He felt stupid believing in the biblical God and so walked away. What brought him back five years later? Someone gave him a DVD of a Christian apologist who laid out the scientific evidence for God. I hear this type of story over and over again. Apologetics is critical for helping students build a sticky faith.

According to Powell and Clark, the doubts young people have generally involve four questions. Two of these key questions are: “Does God exist? “ and “Is Christianity true or the only way to God?” These are apologetic-oriented questions that we must help students work through. I agree wholeheartedly with Powell and Clark that we need to create safety zones for kids to doubt. And let’s make sure we view their doubts as an opportunity to lovingly and patiently guide them to the truth.

The Intolerance of Tolerance

Brett Kunkle — Sun, 02 Oct 2011 20:00:00 -0700

Is the Bible intolerant? That was the question Nathan Hansen asked me to answer for hundreds of students and adults recently. Three years ago, Nathan, Snohomish Community Church’s innovative youth pastor, created Jesus University, a five-day youth conference in the Seattle area. During the day, students serve their community. At night, the community is invited to come hear top Christian bands.

But before the bands play, Nathan has a Christian apologist address a tough question for an hour, followed by 30 minutes of Q & A. The big-name bands draw thousands of people throughout the week, but Nathan ensures they’re given more than music. They get an intelligent yet gracious defense of Christianity. And our culture desperately needs some clear thinking when it comes to the topic of tolerance.

Homophobic. Racist. Chauvinistic. Bigoted. Intolerant. Christians are bullied with this kind of name-calling all the time. Rather than cower in a corner, we can counter with clear thinking. First, before we move the conversation forward we need to define terms. When charged with intolerance, we need to ask a simple clarifying question, “What do you mean by that?” and then listen carefully to the answer. Most challengers will offer some version of the contemporary view of tolerance. “You think you’re right and everyone else is wrong and that’s intolerant.” Or, “All religious views are equally valid and none should be considered better.” Only then are we ready to respond in a helpful way.

Contemporary tolerance is self-contradictory. The “you think you’re right and others are wrong” version is offered as a corrective to our views. However, a corrective is only given when one thinks their view is right and another view is wrong. In the very act of correcting Christians, they do what they say we shouldn’t do. So according to their own definition, they turn out to be the very thing they charge Christians with being: intolerant.

The “all views are equally valid” version of tolerance is no better. I put up some statements for students at Jesus U and asked if they were okay with them. For example, “Parents who abuse their children in the privacy of their own homes should be allowed to do so.” Of course, students objected. But I pointed out if the contemporary version of tolerance is correct, then we’re obligated to tolerate this view regarding child abuse. All views are equally valid and this is a view, isn’t it? Students frowned, knowing something was wrong.

I confirmed their suspicions by asking them if the contemporary belief about tolerance is itself a view. Yes it is and therefore, the criterion of the view applies to itself. It is a view that should not be considered better than other views. However, it’s being offered as the correct version of tolerance. But that’s contradictory because there’s no such thing as a correct version if all views are equally valid. The contemporary view of tolerance turns out to be intolerant.

Students got it. A few minutes of clear thinking unraveled years of cultural confusion on tolerance. Afterward, I was able to restore the classical meaning of tolerance: all people are equal, all views are not. We are to treat everyone with dignity and respect regardless of their disagreements because all people are made in the image of God. However, we must put truth at the forefront, always asking what views are true because falsehood in our own lives should never be tolerated.

The church needs a new generation of Christians who will stand courageously for the truth, even as they are called names like intolerant or bigot. Clear thinking is an important first step.

GodQuest

Stan Jantz — Mon, 12 Sep 2011 00:18:30 -0700

Going on a quest is one of the most adventurous, important, and significant things any of us could ever do--if not the most important. Some of the greatest and most enduring stories told in books and film are about epic quests: The Odyssey, The Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, The Chronicles of Narnia, even the Wizard of Oz--all are stories of a hero in search of the one true thing that brings meaning to life.

Even ordinary people go on quests. They may not call it that, but they are on a search for meaning and something that offers true hope in a world that seems to be running out. Some people look for meaning in material things, while others search in various philosophies and religions. Still others seek after meaning by giving themselves to a cause or a political system they hope will make the world a better place. The problem is that at the end of these searches, no matter good or how worthwhile, is a host of unmet expectations.

Maybe you've seen these patterns in some of your friends and family members. I certainly have. It's a natural part of growing up and maturing, so it never bothers me when someone I care about is spending time exploring different philosophies and belief systems. In fact, I encourage it, as long as somewhere along the way they give God a shot.

Over the past year, I have been privileged to research and write a book with Sean McDowell about the greatest quest of all--the quest for God. At the end of the day, this is the only quest that really matters, because it's the only quest that offers meaning hope for this life as well as the next. Of course, just because i believe that doesn't mean someone else has to.That's not what this book, called GodQuest: Discover the God Your Heart Is Searching For, is about.

I'm excited to tell you that GodQuest is a book about discovery, not dogma. It's about a relationship with the one true God, not rhetoric about Him. As the user embarks on this GodQuest, he or she wil be encouraged to navigate their spiritual journey by following six "signposts" that provide direction and invite the traveler to make choices along the way:

Signpost 1: THE QUEST: What you believe determines where you go in life.
Signpost 2: THE BEGINNING: What you believe about creation determins how you view your life.
Signpost 3: THE WORD: What you believe about the Bible determins how you live your life.
Signpost 4: THE QUESTION: What you believe about God's goodness defines your relationship with Him.
Signpost 5: THE KING: What you believe about Jesus' identity determines your path in life.
Signpost 6: THE PATH: The path you follow in your spiritual journey determines your destination.

Check out the book, published by Outreach, for use by your church (there's a complete DVD curriculum) or someone you care about who is searching for meaning in their life. Even for those who have already decided that God is the object of their search, GodQuest will give a stronger foundation for faith and help draw them closer to the one who loves them more deeply and knows them more fully than they could ever imagine.

So . . . You're Spiritual but not Religious?

Caroline Ferdinandsen — Sun, 28 Aug 2011 10:58:00 -0700

So you’ve got problems with Church—the one with the capital C?

You grew up sitting in various pews, but after getting a dose of higher education, you’re not really into anything that smacks of organized religion. After studying the Crusades, learning what jihad really means, and reading ten bloggers rant about the Pope’s pedophile cover-up, you figure that all of these manmade institutions aren’t credible. The Church—any church—is just a nasty, manmade construct designed to give uneducated, needy people some scaffolding.

On the other hand, you also think that God probably exists, and Jesus and the Buddha and Mother Teresa were onto something good. You don’t want to adopt the atheist’s combative edge or the agnostic’s arrogant philosophizing, so you snuggle down into the cozy netherworld of Spiritual Living. It’s a one-size-fits-all accommodating worldview fed by books like Eat, Pray, Love and The Secret. Spiritual Living lets you pray for wisdom or wear cool T-shirts or even go to silent retreats where you can stare at the ocean for a long time. It’s tapas-style dining where you order tasty little samples of religion’s best ideas—without the prix fixe risk. Come to think of it, if you don’t trust the chef to choose for you, it might be better to pick a different restaurant altogether.

To the complete rejecters of the spiritual life, I applaud you, at the very least, for not being lukewarm on faith, a stance that Jesus couldn’t tolerate. You run your bathwater icy cold, and you bear the discomfort with a certain measure of pride. But to those who love constantly fiddling with the temperature, let me give you a few reasons why historical, orthodox Christianity is worth a second look.

Showing up at a local church is healthier than staying at home.

When you tell me you can pray, worship, serve, and grow nearer to God in your own way and on your own time, does it really happen? Do men and women, who are designed for fraternal loyalty and the fellowship of others, really have the self-discipline and encouragement to pursue faith in isolation?

The style of church, meeting times, and congregation may seem unorthodox, but that is not the point. You don’t have to attend a traditional, wear-a-dress, Sunday-morning congregation. But an authentic Christian believer doesn’t go for too long without craving the mutual encouragement and accountability of others in the faith. You are sure to tell me about an example or two—maybe even in your own life—when faith was sustained without community, but I will probably be skeptical. Tiny fringe groups who aren’t tethered to the historical faith are doomed to drift here and there, vulnerable both to error and narcissism.

As long as people are in charge, the Church will mess up. Get over it.

If you’re waiting for the Church’s track record to get better before you sign up, don’t bother. If you recognize that God uses the Church in spite of its members’ faults, you’ll step inside, thankful that your own jackass tendencies won’t disqualify you either. The Christian church throughout history has let everyone through its doors—the sick, lonely, rich, educated, ghetto-dwelling, insane, arrogant, beautiful, and homely. If you weren’t welcome at your last church, then try again. That particular congregation had it wrong and will figure out their mistake before long. Another congregation might be further along, so don’t give up so easily.

The Church is a hospital where you get to be both a doctor and a patient.

When you join with what the Bible calls “the Body of Christ,” you have access to a radically different kind of HMO (Hope Maintenance Organization). On your healthiest days, God calls you to restore and love; on your sickest days, you have others tending to your bedside. People who ditch the church have cancelled their spiritual healthcare plan.

The Bible is precise in its instruction to the Christian churches. Its members love and restore, offer correction and spiritual rehabilitation, care and are cared for—all in a tightly interconnected (and even mysterious) web of love. The Church becomes the hands and feet of Jesus Christ himself. Those who have made spirituality a one-man show can neither love or be loved by any person besides themselves.

Orthodox Christianity changes people from the inside out, not the other way around.

Every other major religion, including the Judaism from which Christianity was born, requires external obligations of perfection and discipline: be, do, obey, perform. The gospel of Jesus Christ offers us something entirely different: a supernatural grace that carries us from death to life. This transformation causes our spirit to crave obedience and good works in a way that makes little sense to the rest of the world.

Participating in random, spiritual acts like focused breathing, charitable acts, or positive thinking relies on either willpower or manipulating biology—precisely why people like it so much. It produces a veneer of good will and well being that we are likely to find among secular humanists and do-gooders. It’s the solution that takes us only half way, by giving us a semblance of peace in this life, but with little power to affect the human soul or eternity.

The Kingdom of God is bigger than your individual needs.

In the giant narrative that is God’s story, God is the main character. Our attraction to Spiritual Living is borne out of our fascination with having the leading role, writing our lines every morning depending on our mood and personal whims. In another essay, I wrote that we must let God write the script and cast his own play—that having seven billion screenwriters is a bad idea. (“If we had it our way, I can only imagine the freakish movies full of nothing but leads. Wedding scenes with a hundred brides and no guests, funerals with nothing but corpses.”)

Smart people like to be in control, and submitting to a God that Christians frequently call Lord might feel like ancient feudalism. At some point, however, you will be broken beyond belief, unable to fix yourself. It will eventually happen when your own desires lead you to spiritual desperation. And if you still don’t believe me, then you haven’t reached the end of your life yet when everyone succumbs to the universal fate we call death. Death cannot be fixed. It’s one plot line you can’t write out of your play.

So, these five reasons may seem paradoxically selfish. On one hand, becoming part of orthodox Christianity asks you to give it all away while, on the other hand, it gives you everything back. I suppose that’s one of the great mysteries of my Christian faith, where its doctrine includes crazy reversals like how King Jesus was actually a humble servant and when I die, I live.

If you decide to simply be spiritual—and you do reject orthodox Christianity—at least keep your eyes wide open while you’re wandering the roads. They lead to nowhere in particular toward nothing specific for reasons not too clear. But don’t panic: Jesus and his Church won’t be far if ever you should change your mind.