Interesting Article

Anything religious related that you want to talk about or have questions about the Word? If it relates to Faith it can be discussed in this section.

Interesting Article

Postby andrwfields on Sun Jul 28, 2013 9:46 am

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/07/27/why-millennials-are-leaving-the-church/

Why millennials are leaving the church
By Rachel Held Evans, Special to CNN

(CNN) – At 32, I barely qualify as a millennial.

I wrote my first essay with a pen and paper, but by the time I graduated from college, I owned a cell phone and used Google as a verb.

I still remember the home phone numbers of my old high school friends, but don’t ask me to recite my husband’s without checking my contacts first.

I own mix tapes that include selections from Nirvana and Pearl Jam, but I’ve never planned a trip without Travelocity.

Despite having one foot in Generation X, I tend to identify most strongly with the attitudes and the ethos of the millennial generation, and because of this, I’m often asked to speak to my fellow evangelical leaders about why millennials are leaving the church.

Armed with the latest surveys, along with personal testimonies from friends and readers, I explain how young adults perceive evangelical Christianity to be too political, too exclusive, old-fashioned, unconcerned with social justice and hostile to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.

I point to research that shows young evangelicals often feel they have to choose between their intellectual integrity and their faith, between science and Christianity, between compassion and holiness.

I talk about how the evangelical obsession with sex can make Christian living seem like little more than sticking to a list of rules, and how millennials long for faith communities in which they are safe asking tough questions and wrestling with doubt.

Invariably, after I’ve finished my presentation and opened the floor to questions, a pastor raises his hand and says, “So what you’re saying is we need hipper worship bands. …”

And I proceed to bang my head against the podium.

Time and again, the assumption among Christian leaders, and evangelical leaders in particular, is that the key to drawing twenty-somethings back to church is simply to make a few style updates – edgier music, more casual services, a coffee shop in the fellowship hall, a pastor who wears skinny jeans, an updated Web site that includes online giving.

But here’s the thing: Having been advertised to our whole lives, we millennials have highly sensitive BS meters, and we’re not easily impressed with consumerism or performances.

In fact, I would argue that church-as-performance is just one more thing driving us away from the church, and evangelicalism in particular.

Many of us, myself included, are finding ourselves increasingly drawn to high church traditions – Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, the Episcopal Church, etc. – precisely because the ancient forms of liturgy seem so unpretentious, so unconcerned with being “cool,” and we find that refreshingly authentic.

What millennials really want from the church is not a change in style but a change in substance.

We want an end to the culture wars. We want a truce between science and faith. We want to be known for what we stand for, not what we are against.

We want to ask questions that don’t have predetermined answers.

We want churches that emphasize an allegiance to the kingdom of God over an allegiance to a single political party or a single nation.

We want our LGBT friends to feel truly welcome in our faith communities.

We want to be challenged to live lives of holiness, not only when it comes to sex, but also when it comes to living simply, caring for the poor and oppressed, pursuing reconciliation, engaging in creation care and becoming peacemakers.

You can’t hand us a latte and then go about business as usual and expect us to stick around. We’re not leaving the church because we don’t find the cool factor there; we’re leaving the church because we don’t find Jesus there.

Like every generation before ours and every generation after, deep down, we long for Jesus.

Now these trends are obviously true not only for millennials but also for many folks from other generations. Whenever I write about this topic, I hear from forty-somethings and grandmothers, Generation Xers and retirees, who send me messages in all caps that read “ME TOO!” So I don’t want to portray the divide as wider than it is.

But I would encourage church leaders eager to win millennials back to sit down and really talk with them about what they’re looking for and what they would like to contribute to a faith community.

Their answers might surprise you.

Rachel Held Evans is the author of "Evolving in Monkey Town" and "A Year of Biblical Womanhood." She blogs at rachelheldevans.com. The views expressed in this column belong to Rachel Held Evans.


Pretty thought provoking. She does point out something that I've been thinking about for a few years: the fact that we, as the church (mostly), don't allow members of the LGBT community into our sanctuaries. It's not that I'm saying we should tell them, "Gay is OK!" or that one of us should go out and marry a dude, but it does stand to reason that none of them are ever going to see the glory, love, and forgiveness of God if we never let them in.

She also talks about the allegiances to certain political parties and the war with science.

Any thoughts on this?
"...An Apology. If you met me between 1987 and 2005 and I told you, "I'll pray for you," that was a lie. Never happened. I probably didn't pray for you. And that's not cool." - Prodigal Jon from StuffChristiansLike.blogspot.com
User avatar
andrwfields
Constable
 
Posts: 1015
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 3:05 pm
Location: London, KY

Re: Interesting Article

Postby RevSears on Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:33 pm

gave it a read. while it contains some truths and good points, it seems very emergent friendly. The author mentions science several times, and i think it points to whats really going on. We, as Christians, failed to give our kids an education, in many cases failed to educate ourselves, regarding science and the bible. we have been half hearted, confused, and often full of the world ourselves with only superficial answers to questions. Younger folks picked up on that and left. Many of their questions have very solid answers, but once we lost them there, they picked up other views from the culture too, ones that they simply don't like the Bible's answers on, because moral relativism and cultural norms have eaten away at the Bible's authority

so questions? yes people have them and need to ask them, but the leadership needs to be better prepared to answer them, and also teach on them before they are even asked, we have to be aware of what our culture is teaching kids, I honestly think many older Christians were completely naive on that front, at least on the details. should we stop trying to be "cool' absolutely, it needs to be biblical, and relevantly communicated (as opposed to trying to communicate only what's relevant) but some do face hangs up on human tradition, so it's a mixed bag of issues there. And we can't bend the truth to more open, truth is truth, which seems to be what this article is hinting at in a couple of places.
http://nerd4thelord.wordpress.com/ A blog about Nerd topics from a Christian perspective.
User avatar
RevSears
 
Posts: 1451
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 1:35 pm
Location: Springboro, OH

Re: Interesting Article

Postby RevSears on Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:39 pm

Saw you posted a little more about the LGBT community here than on Facebook. (my above posts are just copies from there) It's a fine line. I think the bible teaches the majority of evangelism actually should occur on the outside of the church (Go!, Jesus Sent etc...) but of course some does occur by bringing a friend to church, such as Andrew brought Peter to hear Jesus. So I can see a real point there, can a sinner (which we all are) feel loved instead of attacked in church. I think we if stop making homosexuality our favorite sin to pick on, and starting adding more love, but continue to speak truth it can happen. I've heard preachers speak about tattoos from the pulpit, and not felt attack (and feel that they are wrong) i've also while in sin, say pre-marital sex in high school, heard convicting messages, that didn't sound like they were venomous attacks at me personally.

I just don't think that's what the LGBT community wants. Look at the change of the definition of the word homophobe, it used to mean someone who treated homosexuals as less than people, assumed they were all pedophiles, thought they must not touch them so they couldn't somehow catch the gay etc, now the word regularly is used for someone who simply stands up for biblical marriage regardless of if they love the individual or not. Our current culture wants a full stamp of approval and nothing short of that will do.
http://nerd4thelord.wordpress.com/ A blog about Nerd topics from a Christian perspective.
User avatar
RevSears
 
Posts: 1451
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 1:35 pm
Location: Springboro, OH

Re: Interesting Article

Postby andrwfields on Mon Jul 29, 2013 1:27 am

Not to dive too deep into the LGBT thing (like we did on the phone earlier), I think you're right about the world wanting full acceptance of gay "rights."

Personally, and I say this with the full understanding that I will come under fire for this, I don't care if they get gay married. The only higher authority that may recognize that union is the government. It doesn't really affect me. I don't think it's going to start spreading like a disease or anything either. Gays have been around for centuries and I don't see that changing.

All of that being said, I think the church is failing that community of people. Most of the time, they haven't even been reached out to or they've been shunned for their lifestyle choices before they can even ask a question about God. All the while, the pastor is diddling the deacon's wife (true story) and they still want him to lead the church "because he has a great message to deliver."

Does that seem right to you?

As for the other big topic she touches on, I believe that there is a middle ground that can be reached between evolutionary theory and creationism. I'm one from the school of thought that believes Christianity and Science compliment one another and do not have to conflict.

On the whole, I believe she has a very good point. It's one we've all known about for a long time, but refused to see. How many people between the ages of 20-35 do you see in the church these days? Out of the members of my church, there are three. One is a single dad (me), one is a single mom (we dated once), and the other is my sister (she's married, and we never dated :lol: ). Millenials have a world of information at their fingertips, but all they really want is to ask some people they trust a few harder questions, and the best they get offered is a generic, "God moves in mysterious ways," or "God knows the plans he has for all of us."
"...An Apology. If you met me between 1987 and 2005 and I told you, "I'll pray for you," that was a lie. Never happened. I probably didn't pray for you. And that's not cool." - Prodigal Jon from StuffChristiansLike.blogspot.com
User avatar
andrwfields
Constable
 
Posts: 1015
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 3:05 pm
Location: London, KY

Re: Interesting Article

Postby RevSears on Mon Jul 29, 2013 9:22 pm

As for the other big topic she touches on, I believe that there is a middle ground that can be reached between evolutionary theory and creationism. I'm one from the school of thought that believes Christianity and Science compliment one another and do not have to conflict.


The way you responded to this made makes me think your maintaining that millions of years are possible within the biblical account, and to disagree with that disagree s with science. I love science, it confirms the bible, it tells us about what God has made. But if you feel that science demands millions of years, your not making a distinction between data and conclusions, atheistic vs. theistic world views, or historical or observational science.

That said, there are tons of evidences for a earth. Answers in Genesis is a great place to start.

Just a few of the top of my head,

If the universe itself is billions of years old, blue stars should have all burned out because of the rate at which they burn, they have not.
If the universe is billions of years old the stars should not be clustered leaving dead spaces as they are but should have spread out more evenly after the big bang.

Down on earth, if the earth was millions of years old we should have more carbon 14 than we do.
If the moons rate of distance from the earth was constant (and it appears to be) if we were millions of years old, the moon would have been halfway into the earth.
If the dinosaurs truly lived millions of years ago we shouldn't be able to find any spongy tissue in their bones (WE HAVE!)
if dinosaurs and man never lived together why do we have evidence that each culture has encountered them? They weren't all archeologists back then.
If dinosaurs and man never lived together then why Does God describe one to Job as a creature he could actually see?

and i could keep going.

THe problem with atheistic minded scientists can be summed up with a story.

A man walks into a doctor's office and claimed he was dead.
The doctor was confident he was not and tried to convince the man that he was delusional.
the doctor said,"but you walked in here!"
the man replied, " corpses have muscle spasms."
"But your talking to me right now." the doctor quickly pointed out.
"Gases are released when the body decomposes, i'm just using it like breath to make words."
thus went on for some time finally the doctor asked him, "do dead men bleed?"
The man responded with, "of course not, everyone knows the heart stops beating when you die."
so out of frustration the doctor grabbed his pen from his pocket, clicked it once and stabbed the man in his leg.

The man yelped in shock and looked down to see blood.
the doctor says, "see your bleeding!"
the man says, "I was wrong!"
The doctor only had a moment of relief before the man added, " Dead men do bleed!"



atheistic scientists are determine to interpret the data (science) in a way that ignores any possibility of God.

Pslam 19:1 says," the heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork." (ESV)

Andy please don't be guilty of trying to shove an atheistic world view's interpretation of data into the bible to make it fit. That's Isogesis as opposed to exegesis, reading information into the text, as opposed to drawing it out.
http://nerd4thelord.wordpress.com/ A blog about Nerd topics from a Christian perspective.
User avatar
RevSears
 
Posts: 1451
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 1:35 pm
Location: Springboro, OH

Re: Interesting Article

Postby andrwfields on Tue Jul 30, 2013 8:17 am

Here's the big thing you've got to keep in mind about science: it is not a religion. Science is a tool. Science is not perfect, but it is constantly being used to learn about the world around us. Where science goes wrong is in the hands of the atheists and theists alike who want to abuse it to make a point.

As for the examples you gave, I find most of them to be pretty weak. I'm assuming you've read these somewhere, so I'm hoping the author had some evidence to go with this stuff.

If the universe itself is billions of years old, blue stars should have all burned out because of the rate at which they burn, they have not.
If the universe is billions of years old the stars should not be clustered leaving dead spaces as they are but should have spread out more evenly after the big bang.


Who said that the big bang had stopped? Many scientists believe that the big bang (or the initial expansion from it) is still taking place in undeveloped parts of the universe. Almost like a never-ending effect. Blue stars could still exist for multiple reasons. It takes a long time for their light to reach the earth, so a lot of them could already be turning red, yellow, orange, or whatever color you like. Also, you don't think it's possible for new stars to be created?

As for the clustering, that seems like a simple case of gravity to me. All things, aside from God, submit to gravity. If you pour water on a piece of wax paper on an even surface, will they not cluster into bigger drops? Even if you were to leave them for a while (assuming they wouldn't evaporate), they would still be in those drops.

Down on earth, if the earth was millions of years old we should have more carbon 14 than we do.

If the dinosaurs truly lived millions of years ago we shouldn't be able to find any spongy tissue in their bones (WE HAVE!)


I like it that you're trying to use science to disprove science. It's clever. Just don't forget that science is a tool and not a being. No tool is perfect and all can be improved upon. How long has mankind known about carbon dating? Are they not still trying to improve upon it as we speak? As for spongy tissue; when I took my anatomy courses for the last two semesters, we talked about spongy tissue in the bones. It's formed at adolescence and hardens as we age. I don't see why this is surprising that it was found? It would be just like any other part of the fossil.

If the moons rate of distance from the earth was constant (and it appears to be) if we were millions of years old, the moon would have been halfway into the earth.

Where are you reading this stuff? I'm going to need some backup information on this one. Right now, it just sounds crazy. To me, it sounds like you're saying, "Well, the moon should have hit us a long time ago, just because it's old now."

if dinosaurs and man never lived together why do we have evidence that each culture has encountered them? They weren't all archeologists back then.
If dinosaurs and man never lived together then why Does God describe one to Job as a creature he could actually see?


Two words: extinction and evolution. Crocodiles and alligators are direct descendants from dinosaurs. There is evidence that they have also grown smaller through the years. When whatever event happened that killed the dinosaurs, keep in mind that there is no way that it could have killed them all, according to scientific theories.

“Behold, Behemoth,[a]
which I made as I made you;
he eats grass like an ox.
Behold, his strength in his loins,
and his power in the muscles of his belly.
He makes his tail stiff like a cedar;
the sinews of his thighs are knit together.
His bones are tubes of bronze,
his limbs like bars of iron.
“He is the first of the works of God;
let him who made him bring near his sword!

[a]Job 40:15 A large animal, exact identity unknown


I never understood how people got "dinosaur" from this. To me, it seems more like some kind of mammoth which did live alongside humans. But the part at the end did catch me a bit; “He is the first of the works of God..."
"...An Apology. If you met me between 1987 and 2005 and I told you, "I'll pray for you," that was a lie. Never happened. I probably didn't pray for you. And that's not cool." - Prodigal Jon from StuffChristiansLike.blogspot.com
User avatar
andrwfields
Constable
 
Posts: 1015
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 3:05 pm
Location: London, KY

Re: Interesting Article

Postby RevSears on Tue Jul 30, 2013 11:08 pm

“Behold, Behemoth,
which I made as I made you;
he eats grass like an ox.
Behold, his strength in his loins,
and his power in the muscles of his belly.
He makes his tail stiff like a cedar;
the sinews of his thighs are knit together.
His bones are tubes of bronze,
his limbs like bars of iron.
“He is the first of the works of God;
let him who made him bring near his sword!"

Does a mammoth tail swing like a cedar?

Image

Sounds far more like this:

Image



As far as me using science to disprove science? Love you bro, but that didn't make sense and I need to ask for clarification from you there. I think you mean, using science to disprove scientists, which isn't quite right, I'm supplying facts that support the bible, in contrast to some scientists who interpret Data in a way with an anthiestic world view intent on keeping God out of the equation.

as for where I am getting my info?

SO MANY PLACES It's INSANE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZomigNj ... X1p4Kg1x_o

That's part one of a long series that's really worth a view, I think it's essential.

The rest of them can be easily found by subscribing to them, You can watch as he shows you video of evolutionists sawing whole sections of bone off to make the infamous lucy be able to stand up right, it's on film and can't be made up!

Beyond there?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/

http://creation.com/

[url]
http://www.str.org/[/url]

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Freedom-From-Atheistic-Scientism/548017305239016

https://www.facebook.com/pages/True-Dinos/112106735517375?hc_location=stream

https://www.facebook.com/creationministries

Meyer, Stephen c. Signature in the cell DNA and the Evidence for intelligent Design

Behe, Michael J. Darwin's black box, what darwin didn't know

And a large chunk of other books,

the makers of
[url]http://www.evolutionvsgod.com/
[/url]

as they have worked on way of the master (youtube channel, good info at times, but overall not my taste) and answers in genesis (linked above) in the past.

The creation museum,

you can look up Icons of evolution DVD as well

I'm getting really tired of looking up links, but where it all starts is here:

Genesis 1:5 God called the light day, and the darkness he called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day." Genesis clearly teaches that it is one literal day (yom in Hebrew) I start with the bible as God's word, i don't try to read anything else into it.

When it comes to science i look at a data and not just what i am told by some scientists.
http://nerd4thelord.wordpress.com/ A blog about Nerd topics from a Christian perspective.
User avatar
RevSears
 
Posts: 1451
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 1:35 pm
Location: Springboro, OH

Re: Interesting Article

Postby RevSears on Tue Jul 30, 2013 11:15 pm

Two words: extinction and evolution. Crocodiles and alligators are direct descendants from dinosaurs. There is evidence that they have also grown smaller through the years. When whatever event happened that killed the dinosaurs, keep in mind that there is no way that it could have killed them all, according to scientific theories.


how are they direct decedents? how can you prove this observationally?

There is indeed evidence that they have grown smaller through out the years, and that is consistent with the fall. Most reptiles grow as long as they live.

"Most reptiles grow throughout their life but towards the later years growth tend to reduced remarkably. " -http://www.anacondas.org/faqs.htm

a less hostile world, as in a pre fallen world, they could get much bigger! Granted that's just a neat thought, doesn't entirely explain their size changes etc.



I also want to add extinction does not prove evolution, it is a removal of a species, not that species changing into some new kind.

by evolution I'm of course referring to Macro evolution, not micro. Cats to cats are okay, but not Dinosaurs to chickens, it doesn't work.
http://nerd4thelord.wordpress.com/ A blog about Nerd topics from a Christian perspective.
User avatar
RevSears
 
Posts: 1451
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 1:35 pm
Location: Springboro, OH

Re: Interesting Article

Postby RevSears on Tue Jul 30, 2013 11:17 pm

Where are you reading this stuff? I'm going to need some backup information on this one. Right now, it just sounds crazy. To me, it sounds like you're saying, "Well, the moon should have hit us a long time ago, just because it's old now."


If i was unclear here I apologize. At the current rate of the moon's escape velocity (which appears to be constant) if the moon had really been escaping our orbit for millions of years, it would be gone by now, because it's obvious it was smashing into our mountain tops.
http://nerd4thelord.wordpress.com/ A blog about Nerd topics from a Christian perspective.
User avatar
RevSears
 
Posts: 1451
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 1:35 pm
Location: Springboro, OH

Re: Interesting Article

Postby RevSears on Tue Jul 30, 2013 11:27 pm

Who said that the big bang had stopped? Many scientists believe that the big bang (or the initial expansion from it) is still taking place in undeveloped parts of the universe. Almost like a never-ending effect. Blue stars could still exist for multiple reasons. It takes a long time for their light to reach the earth, so a lot of them could already be turning red, yellow, orange, or whatever color you like. Also, you don't think it's possible for new stars to be created?

As for the clustering, that seems like a simple case of gravity to me. All things, aside from God, submit to gravity. If you pour water on a piece of wax paper on an even surface, will they not cluster into bigger drops? Even if you were to leave them for a while (assuming they wouldn't evaporate), they would still be in those drops.


1. The big bang is a theorized event, the drift we see after it is in theory it's effect, not a continuation of the same event.

What your proposing sounds like matter is popping up out of nowhere in other parts of the universe? Am I understanding you correctly?

as for stars check out this article: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v3/n1/star-formation-and-creation Scientists can't get a lock down on our stars really form, they think it's dust fields, but we have seen "new" stars with no dust fields, and "old" stars with massive dust fields. I wouldn't say new stars couldn't have formed since creation, because God could have set that in motion, the problem is by some estimates even the "new" stars are millions of years old, but that doesn't match burn rate!


As for light travel, which I feel is the best argument that the old universe folks have, it actually causes problems for them too!
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-starlight-prove
If you read to the bottom section entitled, light travel-time, a self refuting argument, you see that 14 billion years still isn't enough time for light to travel in the way that it supposed to have. Some potential answers are suggested, but because of the old universe challenges as well, it can hardly be seen as a slam dunk against young earth evidence.
http://nerd4thelord.wordpress.com/ A blog about Nerd topics from a Christian perspective.
User avatar
RevSears
 
Posts: 1451
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 1:35 pm
Location: Springboro, OH

Re: Interesting Article

Postby RevSears on Tue Jul 30, 2013 11:32 pm

alright, I'm out for now on this, it's bed time and I was supposed to be prepping more for Thursday!


I could mention more, movies like Expelled with Ben Stien, some documentries on netflix, Intelligent design studies etc. Not all those agree in a Christian God (Stein is Jewish for example) but can speak to the fact science supports creation, design, and a younger earth.



Andy I just dropped a ton of stuff here, I really encourage you to check out that youtube link, and it's follow up videos, they are a bit long, but I think they are the best presentations with the easiest access that cover a wide range on the subject.
http://nerd4thelord.wordpress.com/ A blog about Nerd topics from a Christian perspective.
User avatar
RevSears
 
Posts: 1451
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 1:35 pm
Location: Springboro, OH

Re: Interesting Article

Postby andrwfields on Wed Jul 31, 2013 8:07 am

Hey! I'm glad to check that stuff out, you're the first person that has presented a valid argument, so I want to see where it goes.

What I meant by using science to disprove science what that carbon dating is a scientific method, so you essentially got it right.

When it comes to the church, they need to be willing to elaborate on the creation of the earth, and allow for science (not scientists) to have a place in that.

Now the school system, unfortunately, is a whole other ballpark.

Two quick things: crocodiles (or relatives of) first came on the scene around the Mesozoic era of dinosaurs, and the dinosaur that you posted a picture of doesn't exist. That's a picture of a brontosaurus and scientists are now saying that that it was bones of other dinosaurs put together to make it look bigger.

Also, I can't say anything about a mammoth tail, never having been hit by one myself, but I have been hit by a cow's tail, and that felt like a large sapling. Mammoths are definitely bigger, so I would say the pain range could go from sapling to tree very quickly! :lol:
"...An Apology. If you met me between 1987 and 2005 and I told you, "I'll pray for you," that was a lie. Never happened. I probably didn't pray for you. And that's not cool." - Prodigal Jon from StuffChristiansLike.blogspot.com
User avatar
andrwfields
Constable
 
Posts: 1015
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 3:05 pm
Location: London, KY

Re: Interesting Article

Postby RevSears on Wed Jul 31, 2013 11:18 am

I agree science needs to be taught more in the church, because people need to be able to defend their faith (1 Peter 3:15)

It's true a brontosaurous didn't exist, but an Apatosaurus did,looks very simliar.
http://nerd4thelord.wordpress.com/ A blog about Nerd topics from a Christian perspective.
User avatar
RevSears
 
Posts: 1451
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 1:35 pm
Location: Springboro, OH


Return to Discussions & Scripture

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron