xjwsforChrist

Non-Religious Christian Spirituality
It is currently Tue Apr 28, 2026 1:29 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Jun 26, 2013 11:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2013 10:41 am
Posts: 706
Please read:
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/arc ... ty/276584/

"Church became all about ceremony, handholding, and kumbaya," Phil said with a look of disgust. "I missed my old youth pastor. He actually knew the Bible."

I have known a lot of atheists. The late Christopher Hitchens was a friend with whom I debated, road tripped, and even had a lengthy private Bible study. I have moderated Richard Dawkins and, on occasion, clashed with him. And I have listened for hours to the (often unsettling) arguments of Peter Singer and a whole host of others like him. These men are some of the public faces of the so-called "New Atheism," and when Christians think about the subject -- if they think about it at all -- it is this sort of atheist who comes to mind: men whose unbelief is, as Dawkins once proudly put it, "militant." But Phil, the atheist college student who had come to my office to share his story, was of an altogether different sort.

Phil was in my office as part of a project that began last year. Over the course of my career, I have met many students like Phil. It has been my privilege to address college students all over the world, usually as one defending the Christian worldview. These events typically attract large numbers of atheists. I like that. I find talking to people who disagree with me much more stimulating than those gatherings that feel a bit too much like a political party convention, and the exchanges with these students are mostly thoughtful and respectful. At some point, I like to ask them a sincere question:

What led you to become an atheist?

Given that the New Atheism fashions itself as a movement that is ruthlessly scientific, it should come as no surprise that those answering my question usually attribute the decision to the purely rational and objective: one invokes his understanding of science; another says it was her exploration of the claims of this or that religion; and still others will say that religious beliefs are illogical, and so on. To hear them tell it, the choice was made from a philosophically neutral position that was void of emotion.

"I really can't consider a Christian a good, moral person if he isn't trying to convert me."
Christianity, when it is taken seriously, compels its adherents to engage the world, not retreat from it. There are a multitude of reasons for this mandate, ranging from care for the poor, orphaned, and widowed to offering hope to the hopeless. This means that Christians must be willing to listen to other perspectives while testing their own beliefs against them -- above all, as the apostle Peter tells us, "with gentleness and respect." The non-profit I direct, Fixed Point Foundation, endeavors to bridge the gaps between various factions (both religious and irreligious) as gently and respectfully as possible. Atheists particularly fascinate me. Perhaps it's because I consider their philosophy -- if the absence of belief may be called a philosophy -- historically naive and potentially dangerous. Or maybe it's because they, like any good Christian, take the Big Questions seriously. But it was how they processed those questions that intrigued me.

To gain some insight, we launched a nationwide campaign to interview college students who are members of Secular Student Alliances (SSA) or Freethought Societies (FS). These college groups are the atheist equivalents to Campus Crusade: They meet regularly for fellowship, encourage one another in their (un)belief, and even proselytize. They are people who are not merely irreligious; they are actively, determinedly irreligious.

Using the Fixed Point Foundation website, email, my Twitter, and my Facebook page, we contacted the leaders of these groups and asked if they and their fellow members would participate in our study. To our surprise, we received a flood of enquiries. Students ranging from Stanford University to the University of Alabama-Birmingham, from Northwestern to Portland State volunteered to talk to us. The rules were simple: Tell us your journey to unbelief. It was not our purpose to dispute their stories or to debate the merits of their views. Not then, anyway. We just wanted to listen to what they had to say. And what they had to say startled us.

This brings me back to Phil.

A smart, likable young man, he sat down nervously as my staff put a plate of food before him. Like others after him, he suspected a trap. Was he being punk'd? Talking to us required courage of all of these students, Phil most of all since he was the first to do so. Once he realized, however, that we truly meant him no harm, he started talking -- and for three hours we listened.

Now the president of his campus's SSA, Phil was once the president of his Methodist church's youth group. He loved his church ("they weren't just going through the motions"), his pastor ("a rock star trapped in a pastor's body"), and, most of all, his youth leader, Jim ("a passionate man"). Jim's Bible studies were particularly meaningful to him. He admired the fact that Jim didn't dodge the tough chapters or the tough questions: "He didn't always have satisfying answers or answers at all, but he didn't run away from the questions either. The way he taught the Bible made me feel smart."

Listening to his story I had to remind myself that Phil was an atheist, not a seminary student recalling those who had inspired him to enter the pastorate. As the narrative developed, however, it became clear where things came apart for Phil. During his junior year of high school, the church, in an effort to attract more young people, wanted Jim to teach less and play more. Difference of opinion over this new strategy led to Jim's dismissal. He was replaced by Savannah, an attractive twenty-something who, according to Phil, "didn't know a thing about the Bible." The church got what it wanted: the youth group grew. But it lost Phil.

An hour deeper into our conversation I asked, "When did you begin to think of yourself as an atheist?"

He thought for a moment. "I would say by the end of my junior year."

I checked my notes. "Wasn't that about the time that your church fired Jim?"

He seemed surprised by the connection. "Yeah, I guess it was."

Phil's story, while unique in its parts, was on the whole typical of the stories we would hear from students across the country. Slowly, a composite sketch of American college-aged atheists began to emerge and it would challenge all that we thought we knew about this demographic. Here is what we learned:

They had attended church

Most of our participants had not chosen their worldview from ideologically neutral positions at all, but in reaction to Christianity. Not Islam. Not Buddhism. Christianity.

The mission and message of their churches was vague

These students heard plenty of messages encouraging "social justice," community involvement, and "being good," but they seldom saw the relationship between that message, Jesus Christ, and the Bible. Listen to Stephanie, a student at Northwestern: "The connection between Jesus and a person's life was not clear." This is an incisive critique. She seems to have intuitively understood that the church does not exist simply to address social ills, but to proclaim the teachings of its founder, Jesus Christ, and their relevance to the world. Since Stephanie did not see that connection, she saw little incentive to stay. We would hear this again.

They felt their churches offered superficial answers to life's difficult questions

When our participants were asked what they found unconvincing about the Christian faith, they spoke of evolution vs. creation, sexuality, the reliability of the biblical text, Jesus as the only way, etc. Some had gone to church hoping to find answers to these questions. Others hoped to find answers to questions of personal significance, purpose, and ethics. Serious-minded, they often concluded that church services were largely shallow, harmless, and ultimately irrelevant. As Ben, an engineering major at the University of Texas, so bluntly put it: "I really started to get bored with church."

They expressed their respect for those ministers who took the Bible seriously

Following our 2010 debate in Billings, Montana, I asked Christopher Hitchens why he didn't try to savage me on stage the way he had so many others. His reply was immediate and emphatic: "Because you believe it." Without fail, our former church-attending students expressed similar feelings for those Christians who unashamedly embraced biblical teaching. Michael, a political science major at Dartmouth, told us that he is drawn to Christians like that, adding: "I really can't consider a Christian a good, moral person if he isn't trying to convert me." As surprising as it may seem, this sentiment is not as unusual as you might think. It finds resonance in the well-publicized comments of Penn Jillette, the atheist illusionist and comedian: "I don't respect people who don't proselytize. I don't respect that at all. If you believe that there's a heaven and hell and people could be going to hell or not getting eternal life or whatever, and you think that it's not really worth telling them this because it would make it socially awkward.... How much do you have to hate somebody to believe that everlasting life is possible and not tell them that?" Comments like these should cause every Christian to examine his conscience to see if he truly believes that Jesus is, as he claimed, "the way, the truth, and the life."

Ages 14-17 were decisive

One participant told us that she considered herself to be an atheist by the age of eight while another said that it was during his sophomore year of college that he de-converted, but these were the outliers. For most, the high school years were the time when they embraced unbelief.

The decision to embrace unbelief was often an emotional one

With few exceptions, students would begin by telling us that they had become atheists for exclusively rational reasons. But as we listened it became clear that, for most, this was a deeply emotional transition as well. This phenomenon was most powerfully exhibited in Meredith. She explained in detail how her study of anthropology had led her to atheism. When the conversation turned to her family, however, she spoke of an emotionally abusive father:

"It was when he died that I became an atheist," she said.

I could see no obvious connection between her father's death and her unbelief. Was it because she loved her abusive father -- abused children often do love their parents -- and she was angry with God for his death? "No," Meredith explained. "I was terrified by the thought that he could still be alive somewhere."

Rebecca, now a student at Clark University in Boston, bore similar childhood scars. When the state intervened and removed her from her home (her mother had attempted suicide), Rebecca prayed that God would let her return to her family. "He didn't answer," she said. "So I figured he must not be real." After a moment's reflection, she appended her remarks: "Either that, or maybe he is [real] and he's just trying to teach me something."

The internet factored heavily into their conversion to atheism

When our participants were asked to cite key influences in their conversion to atheism--people, books, seminars, etc. -- we expected to hear frequent references to the names of the "New Atheists." We did not. Not once. Instead, we heard vague references to videos they had watched on YouTube or website forums.

***

Religion is a sensitive topic, and a study like this is bound to draw critics. To begin with, there is, of course, another side to this story. Some Christians will object that our study was tilted against churches because they were given no chance to defend themselves. They might justifiably ask to what extent these students really engaged with their Bibles, their churches, and the Christians around them. But that is beside the point. If churches are to reach this growing element of American collegiate life, they must first understand who these people are, and that means listening to them.

Perhaps the most surprising aspect of this whole study was the lasting impression many of these discussions made upon us.

That these students were, above all else, idealists who longed for authenticity, and having failed to find it in their churches, they settled for a non-belief that, while less grand in its promises, felt more genuine and attainable. I again quote Michael: "Christianity is something that if you really believed it, it would change your life and you would want to change [the lives] of others. I haven't seen too much of that."

Sincerity does not trump truth. After all, one can be sincerely wrong. But sincerity is indispensable to any truth we wish others to believe. There is something winsome, even irresistible, about a life lived with conviction. I am reminded of the Scottish philosopher and skeptic, David Hume, who was recognized among a crowd of those listening to the preaching of George Whitefield, the famed evangelist of the First Great Awakening:

"I thought you didn't believe in the Gospel," someone asked.

"I do not," Hume replied. Then, with a nod toward Whitefield, he added, "But he does."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jun 26, 2013 4:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2013 8:19 am
Posts: 3403
Excellent article, Paul! Thanks for posting that.

It would seem in some/many cases, the effort to gain more adherents through more popular means... loses those who are truly seeking answers; who aren't interested in just the safe or acceptable responses.

They want something REAL. They are looking for TRUTH. They don't want to be pandered to, and wishy-washy just bores them.

Thank you AGAIN. Those profiles are enlightening, and I have a son who kinda fits those profiles. Though the only thing that our Lord has told me to do for my son is to love him. But he does come to me sometimes to see what I believe, over what other christians (creationists or catholics or whomever) believe.


Peace to you!

tammy


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jun 26, 2013 4:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2013 2:15 pm
Posts: 5133
SO much in this article, dear P (peace to you and THANK you for sharing it with us!). A number of things stood out to me and I would like to expound on them further, if you don't mind? Thank you!

First:

Quote:
Church became all about ceremony, handholding, and kumbaya," Phil said with a look of disgust. "I missed my old youth pastor. He actually knew the Bible."


This is an important statement, IMHO. While it is true that we don't NEED the Bible to know God or Christ, it certainly helps to know enough of it to be able to share with those who are still seeking! Because THEY think they DO need it. And one can't discuss it with them... especially with curious young folk who haven't yet reached the "que sera, sera" point in life and so may NEED to discuss it... if one doesn't know it. Thing is... interpretation. Everyone has their own, including myself at one time. The Bible SAYS, however, that "interpretation BELONGS TO GOD." Given that, when one starts trying to push their OWN interpretations, young folks... who can still see THROUGH lies and hypocrisy (because they're not yet "tainted") will know it. Because sooner or later that interpretation will be shown to be contradicted and/or false.

If, however, one relies on the WORD of God... Christ... to interpret what is supposedly inspired by God (although not all of it is), then one CAN know the Bible... so as to be able to share the TRUTH about/in it with others. Because the mouth of that One, the HOLY ONE of Israel and Holy Spirit, JAHESHUA, the Chosen One of JAH (MischaJah) who IS the Word of God... does not lie but speaks truth. Always. EVERYTHING that comes forth from HIS mouth is upright and true.

Quote:
in an effort to attract more young people, wanted Jim to teach less and play more. Difference of opinion over this new strategy led to Jim's dismissal. He was replaced by Savannah, an attractive twenty-something who, according to Phil, "didn't know a thing about the Bible." The church got what it wanted: the youth group grew. But it lost Phil.


I can SO relate to this! I attended church as a youth because I was searching for God. The churches' answer to folks like me? More bands. More choirs. More youth trips/retreats. God? Nope. Christ? Uh-uh. The Bible? No sir. All of THAT... was "a mystery" and so I wasn't to worry my "young" head over it. Like some of the youth in this study, I was bored. Silly. Which is one of the reasons it was SO easy for JWs to capture me: at least THEY (said they) wanted to "study the Bible." Of course, one finds out that that is really only a precursor - what comes later is not Bible study but Bible "here is what we say it is and no, you can't ask any questions, at least not during THIS meeting and, no, you're study conductor doesn't now, either, so you have to wait on 'Jehovah', who will give it to you through (our) 'faithful and discreet slave' class, which USED to be a whole body of people but now is only 8 or so men... well, that's what we want you to believe, but since someone's telling THEM what to think and say, it's probably actually more than that... or maybe even less, whatever..."

What about this:

Quote:
Most of our participants had not chosen their worldview from ideologically neutral positions at all, but in reaction to Christianity. Not Islam. Not Buddhism. Christianity.

The mission and message of their churches was vague


Note, "mission/message of THEIR... CHURCHES...". Meaning, more than one church has this problem. But that's not surprising, is it? I mean, if you ask MOST young people today why they are the religion they are, they will say that it's because it was the religion of their parents... and grandparents... etc. When you ask them what they BELIEVE, however, they either don't know... or their beliefs are actually quite different than their parents. They would never tell their parents so. But they DON'T know... because their PARENTS don't know. They just "believe" because, well, they "always have." Much of what even their parents believe, however.... is, again, a "mystery."

Then this:

Quote:
These students heard plenty of messages encouraging "social justice," community involvement, and "being good," but they seldom saw the relationship between that message, Jesus Christ, and the Bible. Listen to Stephanie, a student at Northwestern: "The connection between Jesus and a person's life was not clear." This is an incisive critique. She seems to have intuitively understood that the church does not exist simply to address social ills, but to proclaim the teachings of its founder, [Jesus] Christ, and their relevance to the world. Since Stephanie did not see that connection, she saw little incentive to stay. We would hear this again.

They felt their churches offered superficial answers to life's difficult questions.


And, of course, churches treat their young like imbeciles, as if they have no REAL desire to know truth (because most of the "grown ups" don't, so they just ASSUME the younger folks don't either:

Quote:
Serious-minded, they often concluded that church services were largely shallow, harmless, and ultimately irrelevant.


In other words, a huge waste of time! You go and sit... sometimes for hours... and learn... what? Come away knowing... what? That there's some really good music going on in there? Okay, but what does THAT have to do with God and Christ? The singing of praises? Okay, sing! But since most only listen to the melody... NOT the words... what truly is the benefit??

This was good, IMHO:

Quote:
Michael, a political science major at Dartmouth, told us that he is drawn to Christians like that, adding: "I really can't consider a Christian a good, moral person if he isn't trying to convert me." As surprising as it may seem, this sentiment is not as unusual as you might think. It finds resonance in the well-publicized comments of Penn Jillette, the atheist illusionist and comedian: "I don't respect people who don't proselytize. I don't respect that at all. If you believe that there's a heaven and hell and people could be going to hell or not getting eternal life or whatever, and you think that it's not really worth telling them this because it would make it socially awkward.... How much do you have to hate somebody to believe that everlasting life is possible and not tell them that?" Comments like these should cause every Christian to examine his conscience to see if he truly believes that [Jesus] is, as he claimed, "the way, the truth, and the life."


Along with that last comment regarding christians examining their consciences to see if they TRULY believe Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life... this comment stood out to me most:

Quote:
That these students were, above all else, idealists who longed for authenticity, and having failed to find it in their churches, they settled for a non-belief that, while less grand in its promises, felt more genuine and attainable."


In other words, churches' LACK of authenticity/genuineness... is what led these children to non-belief! And WHY the lack (of authenticity and genuineness? One reason only: the lack... of Christ... which is the lack... of TRUTH. Something/someone can't BE authentic or genuine... if it/they are TRUE or truthFUL.

GREAT article, dear, dear P, and thank you, again, you for sharing it with us!

Peace to you!

YSSFS of Christ,

Shellama


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jun 27, 2013 7:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2013 10:41 am
Posts: 706
Welcome :)

What I got out of it was that the churches and pastors didn't convey a passion for Christ and His gospel, a passion for saving people.
Not zeal but Passion.

If there was one book that brought me closer to Christ than any other, it was The Shack.
It put God into a perspective that I could relate to, in a way that I never truly understood till then.
It put God as FATHER, a TRUE Father, not just "Our Father" ( creator) but Our ABBA ( papa/daddy).
In other words, it had passion and made me feel EMOTIONAL Love for Christ and Our Father.
Not devotional, which is still important, but emotional and personal Love.

And, IMO, that is what is missing.

People need to realize that God loves THEM, personally and on a one-to-one basis and Christ loved them PERSONALLY so much that ALL He went though was for THEM, personally.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jun 27, 2013 8:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 3:20 pm
Posts: 1255
People need to realize that God loves THEM, personally and on a one-to-one basis and Christ loved them PERSONALLY so much that ALL He went though was for THEM, personally.

Yes, I agree Paul. Often people feel so far removed from the fact that this personal relationship is possible. I found The Shack interesting too.

Loz x

_________________
"This is my son. LISTEN to Him!"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jun 27, 2013 9:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2013 2:15 pm
Posts: 5133
Dear hubby read "The Shack" (mornin' dear Paul and Loz; peace to you, both!) and really liked it. As to your comments, dear P... I don't think a person can convey to others what they DON'T know themselves. Kinda like someone who's never been a parent telling parents how to parent. Or a woman telling man what it's like to be a man (or vice versa).

You can't sell something YOU don't fully believe in. Well, you CAN but only in the way we view "used car salesmen" ("Yeah, SURE, she's a beaut! Won't give you one day of trouble, I PROMISE you!"... then it breaks down 2 miles from the lot!)

And that is why the passion isn't "there": HE, Christ, isn't there.

I know this doesn't sit well with some, my saying that. And I am TRULY sorry that it doesn't, but not as sorry as I am that it is the TRUTH. Would that he WAS!! But when you try to tell folks that he CAN be... with ALL... all they need to do is LISTEN to him... and that he DOES speak... oh, oops... no. No. No, no, no. Nope. Uh-uh. No can be.

Who, though, can REALLY have passion for someone they don't KNOW?? They can have a FORM of passion, a "kind of" zeal. But it is only when one TRULY knows another that one CAN have true passion FOR such one. Otherwise, their passion is simply about what they know ABOUT such one... but not truly FOR such one.

Think of it: how many of YOU have passion for someone you don't truly know? You have passion for your spouses (yes, you do, even if you're mad at him/her, right now - LOLOL!) because you KNOW him/her. Or for your children. Or your parents. Your siblings. Other family. Friends. Your PETS!! Because all of these have individual, unique, and SPECIFIC PERSONALITIES. They are PERSONS, even if of the fur/feather/fin persuasion. Yes?

Christ, however, is... to most... an ideology. A "personality" that some have CREATED... but not a REAL person. Why? Because they don't REALLY have a relationship with him! I mean, how CAN you have a relationship with someone you DON'T know... have NEVER heard speak to you (and "signing" is a language, albeit not spoken, so let's not go there).

Some might say, "Well, I can get to know a person through their writings." Oh, c'mon... not REALLY. You can get to know some things ABOUT that person, yes. But you do NOT know that person. Even if what they right is an autobiography. And you know even less if what is written is a BIOgraphy. You only know what others SAY about such one.

Even so, when you refer to what such others say... that such ONE said... no. No. No, no, no. Nope. For example, "Many are called; FEW are chosen." You cannot say that, can you? Even though such one is SAID... by others who DID know him... to have said such.

I'm sorry, this topic touches MY passion... because I DO know Christ. Doesn't matter to me if others don't believe me. Shouldn't matter to ANYONE who knows him that others doubt. We would doubt, too... if WE didn't know him. So, it's understandable.

Those who DON'T know him won't COME to know him, however... by fighting those who [say they] do. Rather, the rational, intelligent... and TRULY loving... course... would be to try and understand WHY such ones say they do... and on what basis. And, if necessary, TEST that basis. And if, then, one finds that one cannot[i] accept what is shared... [i]move on... and CONTINUE seeking, asking, knocking. Not hang around arguing, debating, opposing, fighting. If that were the case, none of US should have left the WTBTS.

But all out opposition only shows one thing: fear. Fear that one IS wrong because the one claiming to know Christ IS right. PERFECT love, however, casts ALL fear OUTSIDE. So that there is no REASON to fight against such ones. If God is FOR you... WHO can be AGAINST you? So the fight is moot.

Because, the END... it will all pan out just as God intended and willed. Indeed, it already has. We're just living THROUGH it right now. But it has all already occurred... in HIS "time." He is ahead of us, not behind us. Which is how He KNOWS what our future is, the outcome will be for us. And He sent someone BACK... to guide us THROUGH.

What SENSE does it make, though, for Him to have sent us someone... and told us to LISTEN to that One... if that One DOESN'T SPEAK?? How can ANYONE who believes that with God ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE... believe it IMPOSSIBLE for His personal representative, image, and SON... to not be able to speak to the people He sent them TO? Or for that Son to need to speak through yet another entity? Would He (God) not have said, "This is my Son; he is going to send you another - listen to that one!"? Or "This is my Son; he is going to send his representative to you at some point - listen to that representative!"?

If the SON can do NOTHING of his OWN initiative, but only as he observes the FATHER doing... and if the FATHER knows things even the SON doesn't know... indeed, ALL things... wouldn't the FATHER... KNOW... that the Son was going to send "someone" else? Of course, He would. And... He would have told those He told to listen to the Son.

They don't listen to that Son, however, because they don't know his voice. Because... they don't know HIM. And, as this article's study shows... it may be to the detriment of Christ himself... because young people are turning AWAY, not TO him. I have learned, however, that young people ARE looking for him... seeking him... asking... knocking. If all they have to provide an "answer" is religion and "church"... rather than Christ himself... all of us who profess to be "christians" should be ashamed. Because we're not telling them the TRUTH: about Christ, his voice, holy spirit... and the ANOINTING that teaches us.

We can't tell them, though, what WE don't know.

Peace to you all!

YSSFS of Christ,

Shellama


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jun 27, 2013 10:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2013 8:19 am
Posts: 3403
Nothing to add to that. Every word spoke to me... and so I can only say 'amen'.


Peace and love to you,
tammy


(who has not read the Shack, but my mother liked it)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jun 27, 2013 11:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2013 2:15 pm
Posts: 5133
Oops, I meant to post:

"...believe it IMPOSSIBLE for His personal representative, image, and SON... TO be able to speak to the people He sent them TO..."

Apologies and peace to you ALL!

A slave of Christ,

Shellama


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jun 27, 2013 11:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2013 8:19 am
Posts: 3403
g:)

Lot of that going around lately, lol.


Peace,
tammy


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jun 27, 2013 11:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2013 5:07 pm
Posts: 2474
Good Morning everyone and thank you as well Paul for sharing this,
I noticed a couple things that had been mentioned as well but would like to add a thought on these few also.

These students heard plenty of messages encouraging "social justice," community involvement, and "being good," but they seldom saw the relationship between that message, Jesus Christ, and the Bible. Listen to Stephanie, a student at Northwestern: "The connection between Jesus and a person's life was not clear." This is an incisive critique. She seems to have intuitively understood that the church does not exist simply to address social ills, but to proclaim the teachings of its founder, Jesus Christ, and their relevance to the world. Since Stephanie did not see that connection, she saw little incentive to stay. We would hear this again.



Interesting point. When our Lord was teaching, how involved in personal and social lives did he become?
Shows how man and religious institutions spend more time looking through the window at others, being concerned with their lives and what people are doing...than teaching Truth.
Teaching CHRIST!


Most of our participants had not chosen their worldview from ideologically neutral positions at all, but in reaction to Christianity. Not Islam. Not Buddhism. Christianity.



Sadly, the determining factor to their views comes from the source that should be drawing them to the Son so as to know the Father. Not being responsible for pushing them away entirely.


Thanks for all the comments
Love Justmom /:)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 307 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group