There must have been a real dearth of religion pieces in OpinionJournal’s slushpile, because today’s (Christian Teens? Not Very.) was blipping weak.
We’ll charitably pass over the author’s brag about his Sunday School class to get to the meat of the complaint:
… It turns out that, while they may profess the faith and indeed love Jesus, the vast majority of Christian teenagers in this country actually hold beliefs fundamentally antithetical to the creed. The forces of moral relativism and “tolerance” have gotten to them in a big way. In fact, some leaders believe that mushy doctrine among the younger generation ranks as the No. 1 crisis facing American Christendom today.
About one-third of American teenagers claim they’re “born again” believers, according to data gathered over the past few years by Barna Research Group, the gold standard in data about the U.S. Protestant church, and 88% of teens say they are Christians. About 60% believe that “the Bible is totally accurate in all of its teachings.” And 56% feel that their religious faith is very important in their life.
Yet, Barna says, slightly more than half of all U.S. teens also believe that Jesus committed sins while he was on earth. About 60% agree that enough good works will earn them a place in heaven, in part reflecting a Catholic view, but also flouting Protestantism’s central theme of salvation only by grace. About two-thirds say that Satan is just a symbol of evil, not really a living being. Only 6% of all teens believe that there are moral absolutes–and, most troubling to evangelical leaders, only 9% of self-described born-again teens believe that moral truth is absolute.
Speaking as one of those naughty Catholics skewing the faith vs good works debate, let me note with some pride that any competent Jesuit would send this puppy back with several scathing comments in Attic Greek. First off, the relationship of the statistics to each other is all wonky. Who is the author concerned about, the born-agains or the professed Christians? If the former, then why aren’t we told, say, the percentage of them who believed Jesus committed sins, or that good works will get them into heaven? And if the latter, well, ‘Christian’ stretches from Assembly of God to Unitarian (can’t think of a flexible sect that starts with Z, sorry). Those belonging to sects that officially disavow any or all the above principles might feel a little bemused at the fact that somehow they suddenly stopped being Christians. I certainly am.
But, really, that’s the real problem, isn’t it? What we’re seeing here is an attempt to redefine Christianity in a manner that would exclude a whole bunch of folks – including me, so the fact that I might be taking this a touch personally has to be considered in your assessment – and although I can’t imagine that Dale Buss will actually succeed, even the attempt is rude. There’s been a debate and a half over the years over who gets to call themselves ‘Christian’ – ask the Mormons and the Jevohah’s Witnesses if you don’t believe me, but only if you’ve got time to kill – and when it comes down to it the answer is going to have to be ‘people who want to’. This means putting up with groups who are by your standards downright weird* – then again, they’re probably thinking the same of you and your group, so it evens out. Hey, this applies to me, too: the idea that Dale Buss – a guy who’s apparently disapproving of LotR (a movie with an actual moral center, which is not so common of Hollywood that examples should be dismissed) and worried about the fact that “Nearly 60% of evangelical Christian teenagers now say that all religious faiths teach equally valid truths”** – gets to use the same term to describe his faith as I do to describe mine is kind of annoying.
Then again, imagine how he’d feel…
Moe
*Note that this doesn’t mean tolerating groups that are engaged in criminal activities, or being excessively polite to groups who are engaging in legal but (to your mind) immoral activities. You just don’t have the right to declare them not real Christians and expect it to stick.
**Free advice to my Democratic colleagues: forget that you’ve ever even heard the word ‘fundie’. It’s doing you more harm than good.
Of course, I say this somewhat serenely, as I’ll probably be ignored or derided for so advising. Alas. Alack.
“Kids these days, with the hair and the ecumenism…”
Well, Opinion Journal may find an increase in tolerance alarming, but this is one Christian who finds it heartening.
‘Christian’ stretches from Assembly of God to Unitarian
Speaking as a Unitarian, while we certainly have Christians in our congregation, it’s by no means a requirement; matter of fact, some congregations actually move away from anything that smacks of Christianity. The actual name of the group I’m affiliated with, for example, is “Unitarian Universalist Association”, and we’ll welcome anybody who is willing to adhere to the basic principles. They’re not incongruent with some flavors of Christianity, or with Judaism, or Buddhism, or some of the more tolerant varieties of Islam. We also wind up with various types of pagans and atheists and humanists and people with odd belief structures.
“They’re not incongruent with some flavors of Christianity,”
Mostly what I meant… plus, of course, the fact that the sect’s name starts with the letter U. 🙂
Free advice to my Democratic colleagues: forget that you’ve ever even heard the word ‘fundie’.
Do you mean that in the sense of using fundie as a slur or as the broader tack of Democrats vs. Fundamentalists? (Christian and Islamic et al.)
I have to say I wish more sensible Christians would raise a louder voice against their own Fundamentalists. Alas. Alack. As you say.
Gasp! You mean… not all Christians think alike? But… but I thought all of them were obedient little bees grown straight out of the hivemind!
“Do you mean that in the sense of using fundie as a slur”
Bingo. Encourages sloppy thinking, it does. 🙂