Princeton Seminary Professor Kendra Creasy Dean shares what she considers some depressing news in her new book, Almost Christian. As a researcher in the National Study for Youth and Religion, she helped conduct in depth interviews with more than 3300 teenagers who call themselves Christians.  Her findings show that most “Christian” kids are indifferent and inarticulate about their faith. The faith they do discuss often boils down to what has been labeled “moralistic therapeutic deism” – a belief in a generally good God who exists primarily to help make people happy.   This “imposter” faith contributes to the massive departure of so many young people from the church during their high school and college years.  Too often parents and churches have low expectations for teenagers.  Too many youth groups are designed to keep students out of trouble and simply being nice – not truly exploring the faith.  However, she did find some who had a passion for their faith and an ability to talk about it in a meaningful way.  These committed teenagers most often came from Mormon or evangelical backgrounds.  She identified four common traits among this group: They have a personal story about God they can share, a deep connection to a faith community, a sense of purpose and a sense of hope about their future (CNN August 27, 2010)

© 2010, J. M. Erickson. All rights reserved.

Although the US is one of the most religious nations in the world, a survey by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life shows many believe things which contradict their stated faith. 70% of those who claim religious affiliation believe multiple religions can lead to salvation and 68% believe in multiple interpretations of their own religion. 57% of self-identified evangelicals believe multiple religions can lead to salvation. 21% of self-identified atheists believe that some kind of God exists. 80% of respondents believe in moral standards of right and wrong, but only 29% claim their religious teachings help them determine those standards. A copy of the report can be read at www.pewforum.org (SFGate.com June 23, 2008)

© 2008 – 2009, J. M. Erickson. All rights reserved.

Religious People Give More:  Religious Americans give more money and time to charitable causes than their non-religious neighbors.   A new book by Arthur Brooks, Who Really Cares, analyzed ten data sets, concluding that religiosity is one of the best predictors of charitable giving.  Religious citizens give 3.5 times more money, volunteer with organizations twice as often, are 57% more likely to help the homeless, and 66% more likely to donate blood than those who are not religious.   The findings also paint an unexpected political picture as those who are more religious also tend to be more conservative in social and political issues.  In fact, of the 25 states with above average charitable giving, 24 voted for George Bush in the last election.  In Arkansas, citizens donate an average of 3.9% of their income, while in Massachusetts it is only 1.8%.   Good news for religion, however, among religious people, the data showed nothing distinctive about those who consider themselves evangelicals.  (Books and Culture January/February 2008 p. 11)

© 2008, J. M. Erickson. All rights reserved.

Do You Believe in Heaven and Hell: In 1997 only 56% of Americans claimed to believe in hell. That number spiked to more than 70% after the September 11 terrorist attacks. However, recent polling indicates the number has once again fallen to less than 60% of the population.¹

© 2007 – 2008, J. M. Erickson. All rights reserved.

1. ABC News July 11, 2007

© 2007 – 2008, J. M. Erickson. All rights reserved.

An excellent question.

I first answered, “No. But then Jesus already knows the truth so He wouldn’t have to waterboard anyone to get it.” To which she asks, “Is that the only reason he would not waterboard?”

No. Here are two more reasons²:

First, Jesus preached, “Love your enemy,” in the Sermon on the Mount.

You have heard that it was said, “Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.” But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven.³

So I don’t believe Jesus would inflict pain on his enemies, even the mild psychological pain that waterboarding does.

Second, Jesus’ mission was to die at the hands of his Enemy, Satan, in order to provide humankind a way back to God. In allowing Himself to be crucified, Jesus provided forgiveness to all, even to His enemies. No, I don’t think Jesus would waterboard those whom he was meant to save.

OK, so there are three reasons why Jesus might not waterboard. What other reasons are there, do you think?

© 2007 – 2008, J. M. Erickson. All rights reserved.

1. I was not addressing the moral issue of waterboarding
2. Out of many, I suppose
3. Matthew 5:43-45

Increasing Interest in Social Justice: As the election cycle heats up, both parties are taking notice of the increasing interest of younger Christian voters in a number of issues related to social justice. AIDS, poverty, and the environment are all of interest to a demographic long associated only with abortion and homosexual issues. One indicator is that evangelical Wheaton College (IL) boasts the second most active chapter of the Student Global AIDS Campaign – behind Harvard. Coupled with greater involvement by a number of campus ministries, today’s students see a very real connection between the gospel and social engagement. (Daily Northwestern April 25, 2007)

It remains to be seen, however, whether either party can get students to the polls.

© 2007 – 2008, J. M. Erickson. All rights reserved.

• From The Grassy Knoll
• Gary Varvel (Link no longer valid)
• The Daily Detour

I saved TDD for last as a reminder for Christians that we have two ways to present ourselves to the world: (1) As a judgment or (2) as a grace dispenser. The choice we make will have a serious affect on how the world perceives the God and Savior for which we are ambassadors.

© 2007 – 2009, J. M. Erickson. All rights reserved.

1. There was probably no in-between for those who knew (of) him

The article appears in the San Diego Union-Tribune online site SignOnSandDiego and written by Logan Jenkins whose expressed opinion is entirely pragmatic as opposed to spiritual.

I don’t hold out much hope of the media letting us in on the final decision. Either way, it probably won’t be as “newsworthy” as the congressional investigation into the firing of the seven U.S. Attorneys who serve at the pleasure of the President, anyway. Or as “important” as gas prices. Or as “sexy” as O.J. Simpson being asked to leave Ruby’s Steakhouse. The decision, nonetheless is an important one.

A bouquet “ the What Jesus Would Do award “ to the Pilgrim United Church of Christ for taking a giant, yet judicious, step toward welcoming a sex offender into its flock.

In approving a safe-church policy, this inspiring Pilgrim progressed from initial shock and dismay to the majority’s acceptance of a counter-intuitive paradox:

A church’s children are safer in a culture that embraces repentant sex offenders.

Those church members who were abused as children might might never agree “ some of them left Pilgrim United “ but it’s true.

Naturally, controls must be in place. If he’s to be allowed to join the congregation, convicted child molester Mark Pliska will never enjoy absolute freedom of movement. He’s a marked man, if you will, a Cain-like status he appears to accept.

Much more worrisome than Pliska, however, are the sex offenders who have not been convicted but are nevertheless religious. Their guilt can draw them to churches where they’re exposed to potential victims, completing a vicious circle.

In the long run, a church that publicly acknowledges sex criminals within its midst is better equipped to protect its children from pious predators.

© 2007 – 2009, J. M. Erickson. All rights reserved.

In keeping with typical ABC viewpoint, in the linked video, except for the minister, Madison Shockley, ABC interviews those who have great reservations about accepting this man into the church. One man was a victim of sexual abuse as a child and a woman was expressing reservaitons about having her child in close proximity to a sex offender. Both viewpoints, from a modern human point of view, seem valid. And we can certainly empathize with these folks.

Practical matters: (1) A church that advertises itself as “An Open and Affirming, and Inclusive Church with a Progressive Theology and a Commitment to Social Justice” should accept anyone¹ into their body. And (2) the church can institue policies² such that convicted sex offenders never have unsupervised contact with potential victims.³

Spiritual matters: (1) The global Church is composed of sinners⁴ who have turned their lives over to Jesus Christ. How can a local branch of this church restrict it’s membership?⁵ (2) God, through Jesus Christ, is in the business of changing lives. Therefore, sex offenders can be changed. Folks who’ve been abused can be comforted. (3) God commands us to forgive those who sin against us (or others). That doesn’t mean to put one’s self in harms way, but to give up the right to hold the sin against the sinner.⁶.

I pray that Pilgrim votes to accept the sex offender. I pray they will be an example of who Christ followers are for people who are far away from God.

© 2007 – 2008, J. M. Erickson. All rights reserved.

1. Anyone who has accepted Jesus Christ as his/her lord and savior
2. as many other churches have
3. This particular sex offender was convicted of lewd and lacivious behavior and sex with a person under 14
4. Those who have rebelled against God
5. There is a biblical way to confront continuous sin and deal with it
6. Logs and specks and all that