Everybody loves themselves some Jesus, but first: shut yer yap, toe the line, and prove to us you're a christian by voting for godly men and women, and abhoring all that we abhor, and don't ask why we abhor what we abhor because it is to abhorrent to discuss abhorring subjects of little concern for godly minds.

What your students are saying is that they are done with the American Church's "this is the way it is, so conform or be cast out!" and their response is, "Oh really, your way or the highway? Tell you what I'll leave on my own. No, no, don't get up, I'll show myself out, thank you very much."

I agree with that sheer...life/existence/the world etc. does not conform to the neat categories that rigid religiosity seeks to impose. What "an-answer-for-everything" Christianity lacks is mystery and the openness to not know. I see these attitudes as a positive, not necessarily for the growth of a certain kind of church or "brand" of Christianity (after all, Christianity American-style is a commodified sub-culture), but an opportunity for real, honest-to-God evangelism, not to a system of moral improvement but to real life with a real God in the midst of a real community of fellow travelers. Some things, maybe many things, about how we "do" church and faith in this culture must die. But that's ok - our God is a God of resurrection.

I agree with half of Sheer and Wes. I don't' disagree with the content in church. I highly disagree with the presentation - expert driven one way communication - no questions, no ideas, no participation, no objections, no responsive answers, no relationship. This is all the EXACT opposite of what the scripture calls for in the gathering of believers.

If you want a crowd of people in one room, you WILL sacrifice mutual, intimate participation by every one. This dynamic is a key element of the God we serve and what he has asks that we do as his people. You can turn up the volume, add a great beat, talk really cool, spread the front with multimedia, or put robes on, march up the center aisle, and be really somber, but none of it reflects the intimacy of God or the intimate participation He asks for among ourselves. He knows what it takes to reach the next generation and all generations to come. Church is stuck in attraction mode and playing around with true relationship for the learning process.

Tim,
Could you please clarify before I respond as I'm a little confused between this:

"I don't' disagree with the content in church."

which I think conflicts with this:

"I highly disagree with the presentation - expert driven one way communication - no questions, no ideas, no participation, no objections, no responsive answers, no relationship."

I think you left a lot open to interpretation so if you don't mind filling in that hole so I can know what your presenting better, then I can respond, or not depending on what exactly your saying.

Interesting topic. Interested to see where this goes.

I think if you could describe the context in which you are learning these things (country, city, demo of the people in your class, general socio-economic standing of the university) the conversation will have more validity. Our world is too diverse and the internet too all encompassing for you to draw any significant points from your one World Religions course. Even as you begin this article I think you are speaking narrowly about upper middle class, white/caucasian, suburbanites. Perhaps I am being persumptious, but regardless I would love more information sa you lay out your broad strokes.

Sheer, I suspect what Tim is saying based on his past comments is that he accepts the content (the doctrine), but rejects the format of most Evangelical churches, (i.e., dominated by one-way communication from the pulpit/stage).

Thanks, Jarrod.

I included that information in an earlier draft. I'm sorry I deleted it!

In fact, I teach in a very diverse setting. We are in the suburbs of a major city which, 20 years ago, were primarily white, Christian, and middle to upper-middle class. I couldn't give you exact numbers, but a surprising percentage of my students are first and second generation immigrants. Many of them are of Asian (very broadly speaking) and Middle Eastern descent. White/Caucasians make up the majority, of course, but only a slim majority. And "white" includes European and Eastern European immigrants.

As for socioeconomic situation, I would place most of my students below middle-class status. Many of them rely on parents or friends (or the bus) for transportation, can't afford books for class, etc.

And, yes, I agree that the slice is too small to be statistically significant. That's why I point out that the observations are "anecdotal, not scientific." But these findings are consistent with trends I've picked up on for the past couple of years teaching similar students.

Thanks for your interest--and the prompting to clarify.

Sheerakahn, you are painting with a very broad brush today. "...the American Church's "this is the way it is, so conform or be cast out!" What church are you talking about?

Wes, your brush is almost as broad, "...Christianity American-style is a commodified sub-culture". How so?

"What church are you talking about?"

Why, elegance, I'm glad you asked, because it's the Public Church of America of course...the one that all of us represent regardless of denomination...here...let me provide some quotes so you know exactly whom and what I am addressing...

..."We're Anti-Abortion" or "Anti-Homosexual" or "Anti-liberal" or "Anti-healthcare for all/pro-business!"; "Either you are for us, or you are against us, choose, but it's your eternity we're talking about" or "you do not have a right to your speech" or "If you do as you're told for the good of the country God will bless us" or "You don't have to obey godless liberal president" or "obey the president for the good of the country" or "America is proof God exists" or "All Good Christians Vote Republican and All Good Republicans Vote Christian" or "Pro-America/Pro-God/Pro-War, support our troops!" or "I will decide who will be the next President" or "God told me to run for President and I will bring a change to this country" or "Only godless heathens would think evolution is God's way of making this world" or "there is a class war and we will win it!" or "War on Christmas" or "The only thing muslims understand is war, and we're far better at it than they are!"

And of course, my all time favorite quote...

"Kill them all in the name of the Lord"

That, Elegance, is the voice of the Church of America in the airwaves, bumper-stickers, television, news, talking-head shows, newspapers, restaruants, and pulpits that we have here in the USA.
A shining representation of Christ to America, and of course, the world...and I must say...what a cornucopia of wonderous spiritual ugliness, depthless shamelessness, unbelievable ignorance, unsurprising godlessness, and very common, everyday humanity.

That is what the non-Christian sees and hears when we, the American Church, "talks."

Actually, I agree with sheerahkahn and if elegance wants, I can quote any number of passages from Blinded By Might (written by two men who held prominent positions in the Religious Right) that support his(?) statement chapter and verse. Or, if you still don't believe us, then explain why you think that the Betty Bowers website is so popular. If it wasn't close enough to the original for people to recognize what it was trying to parody, then it would fail to work as parody. For many Americans (both Christian and non-Christian), theological conservatism and sociopolitical conservatism are inseparable- IOW, they see no distinction between the fundamentals of the Christian faith and the attitudes mentioned by sheerahkahn. To them, being Christian (or at least orthodox and/or fundamentalist) necessarily entails being part of the Religious Right.
And I half-agree with Tim: a lot of it does have to do with presentation. However, I think another problem is that we have mixed in un-biblical (although not necessarily anti-biblical) concepts and presented them as doctrine.
(N.B.: the distinction I would make between un and anti biblical would be this: anti would include beliefs that are contrary to scripture, such as unitarianism, reincarnation, etc., while un would include things neither supported nor rejected by scripture such as capitalism, democracy, etc.)

sheerahkahn, "The Public Church of America"?

"Kill the amm in the name of the Lord"?

Your brush is broad but it has absolutely no paint on it.

"sheerahkahn, "The Public Church of America"?
"Kill the amm in the name of the Lord"?
Your brush is broad but it has absolutely no paint on it."

Oh really...you...you don't know about that quote? By Jerry Falwell in a debate with Jesse Jackson?

No?

"You've got to kill the terrorists before the killing stops. And I'm for the president to chase them all over the world. If it takes 10 years, blow them all away in the name of the Lord."

Doesn't ring a bell?

Well, and here I thought you would knew about that...huh...well, that is what I get for assuming.

Brandon, back when Billy Graham could have been construed as the voice of the "Public Church of America" he merely informed people of their sin nature, need for forgiveness, the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross, the effectiveness of true repentance and the joy of a heart washed clean, and the confidence of eternal life. He was really quite 'mainstream' if you will. Who is presenting that message today?

I suspect that most of the students in your class have never heard that message. Are they likely to hear it from you?

"Spiritual but not religious.
Consistent with the conventional wisdom about young people—and maybe even older people—in America, the vast majority of my students were quick to identify as spiritual—as believing in something out there bigger than themselves—but were hesitant to identify as religious.
Growing up, our pastors reminded us frequently that Christianity is “not a religion; it’s a relationship.” That’s not what my students mean. They are hesitant to align themselves with a community that they view as wanting to control their behavior or making them adopt an entire belief system in toto. Many of them wrote something to this effect: “I used to go to church. Now I don’t. I don’t feel any closer to God in a church than I do at home.” They feel they have all the necessary resources for faith—all by themselves."

Indeed, this is quite unsurprising as it is the dominant popular view of youth today especially, but America at large as well to some extent. The fact that it's unsurprising makes it no less disheartening -- if not downright tragic -- to be reminded of.

Sheerahkahn and Deof, while I am in general agreement with your assessment of the Religious Right, I think that it would be fair to point out that conservatives (whether theologically or politically) do not have a monopoly on distorting Christianity and manipulating Christians in order to achieve worldly agendas that have nothing to do with the Kingdom of God. There are plenty of liberals (both theologically and politically) who are faithful members of the
Public Church of America.

Sheer, why is it you consider that "all of us represent" what you call the "Public Church of America?" Are you saying that automatically if we confess Christ, others on the outside associate us with this public image? (This I could concede.) On the other hand, it is clear that not all of us agree with Religious Rightism (or Religious Leftism, as the case may be) or, IOW, Christians getting into bed with, and trying to push their own agendas through, American politics (of whatever stripe).

"I think that it would be fair to point out..."

Bill, we're way beyond that now...the deed is done, and...

"it is clear that not all of us agree..."

And therein is the key point that both you and Bill should take heed too...because no, we don't all agree, but the world doesn't care...we're all lumped together now.

The Religious Right are quite stentorian about what they want to do with the United States upto, and including turning it into a neo-fascist/theocratic state.
And the Religious Left are quite soft in how they present the gospel of a loving God, but no requirement for obedience to G-d's will, or salvation through Y'shua, much less a heavy-handed editing of the bible at the pulpit.

In short, both have denuded Christianity to either an ugly brute, or a fluffly, cuddle-sack that smiles beautifically, requiring nothing more than just a nod of the head, and feel good towards others.

/sigh

To be honest, it's all falling apart, and I'm surprised it held together this long.

I figure once this passes, we'll be able to pick up the pieces, but as of right now...we, followers of Y'shua, disciples, servants of the living G-d...yeah...we're stuck holding the bag of others stupidity, and there isn't much to do with it except just watch.

People will still come to faith in spite of all this, but the job has become much harder accomplish...so much harder to do.

sheerahkahn, I've been trying to find someone who can tell me specifically what the phrase "come to faith" means. Can you help?

"sheerahkahn, I've been trying to find someone who can tell me specifically what the phrase "come to faith" means. Can you help?"

Coming to faith...huh...such a simple question, and anyone would think that a simple answer would do, and yet here I sit staring at that phrase thinking to myself, "how long is that road of faith, and can one just simply 'come to it' and claim faith as a start or as a finish to one's walk with G-d?"

I think, without proof, that you have pointed out to me how much that phrase is loaded with a lot of undefined assumptions.

And now I find you have given me a task to which I am, at the moment, unable to deliver an answer that is even satisfactory for myself much less a coherent explanation for you.

Give me a couple of days to think about this as I find it a very good question that makes me question my own opinions (yes, I have an opinion, but whether that opinion squares with the bible has yet to be determined.).

I think sometimes "spiritual not religious" means we want to follow Jesus/what is true in our Christian religion, but we don't want to succumb to reductionist theologies proffered in His Name or legalistic or Pharisaical formulae in order to do so. Is that a possibility as well? I suppose that is a more positive spin on what could be meant by that phrase--the longing of the human heart for spiritual reality/communion with God, not the bondage of religious rules without real meaning attached.

“Can you explain ‘coming to faith’?”

I would think that such a simple question should be answered simply, and yet I had to much in my head to narrow it down to a simple answer. In fact, as I think back...I saw a lot of tangents streaming from that question that have led to other...issues I have been...considering for some time.

Several attempts were far to verbose, and in one I sounded so much like a former professor of mine that I just threw up my hands in disgust.

And yet, G-d comes through for me again.

The answer came this morning. Granted, so did a whole series of answers…but that was primarily for me. Strange how such a simple question as you presented led to much larger questions being answered...actually, it’s rather fascinating how that all played out…years…and in one church service G-d laid it out for me. I find that I am laughing at myself...anyway...on to your answer.

We all start somewhere with G-d, and that “somewhere” begins in the moment of divine presentation when G-d opens …reality(?) and reveals himself to the individual, and it is at this moment of presentation, the moment of clarity of mind and spirit which stirs in the presence of G-d that a decision is made. It is at this moment when that individual accepts the reality of G-d, bows their will in submission, seeks forgiveness and reconciliation through Y’shua, i.e. Comes to faith, or rejects the presentation of G-d.

Thank you sheerahkahn, I like and agree with your explanation as far as it goes. I just wonder why it is so commonly used in religious circles today when to someone who is not a 'Christian' it would sound rather meaningless. I'm always wondering why we are so hesitant to be specific about God and Jesus and the cross. Why do we no longer talk of being 'saved' or coming to 'salvation' or being 'born again'? - This question isn't really for you sheerahkahn, but for the religious leaders of our day. - Since the terms 'born again' and 'salvation' are terms first used by Jesus himself, why do we not use them?

"Why do we no longer talk of being 'saved' or coming to 'salvation' or being 'born again'?"

I think it has to do with the specific's that begs the question...do American Christians understand what following G-d, vis-a-vis Y'shua entails?

Tim, I was very intrigued with your study and I'm glad something like this is being done. It's important to understand these differences. I was just wondering... when you wrote "Buffet-style religion is alive and well among America’s 20-somethings." Is that your observation/opinion inserted or was that actually an expression from the students? Is 'buffet style' part of the new nomenclature we use and would 20-somethings describe it like that?