July 27th, 2013
08:33 AM ET
Why millennials are leaving the church
Opinion 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.
soundoff (9,864 Responses)« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 Next »
About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.
Everyone is free to start their own church - but running your whimsical belief in name of Christ is plain wrong. Just call your church what you will - leave Christ out of it.
Sounds like you could be a supporter of the Waco wackos.
I'm a little ashamed to see so many atheists being rather abusive to the Christian in here. Is it really any of your business what other people believe, so long as they don't smack you in the face with it? I was raise Christian, but found all Christian churches in the area to be completely judgmental and exclusive. I left the religion completely at age 10. Part of the reason I stay away is because I just can't legitimately believe in the religion itself (it's lovely, but it's still sending pretty much everyone I love to hell). HOWEVER, I may have never left the church if I hadn't felt like it was such an exclusive place to begin with. So I think this article is lovely and it really does ring very true.
There's a couple of abusive people, on both sides. That's normal on unregulated comment boards; not condoning it.
But I hope you're not confusing abuse with irreverence, humor, or disagreement. Maybe you're so used to religion being treated with kid gloves, that ordinary criticism sounds abusive.
Sounds about right.
General criticisms are fine. Calling people idiots because they believe in something you don't isn't fine. It's intolerant. Which only frustrates cooperation between religions and types of people.
And for the record, I called out atheists because I expect better from them. There are millions of Christians acting intolerant, I expect that and have learned that arguing against it on that side, especially since I'm a sinning outsider anyway, does nothing. But I'm sad when I see it from my own kind.
That word "intolerance" is bandied about too much. I disagree, and think some of the posters here say silly things. I point them out sometimes. It's not a big deal. Go ahead and mock me back.
It's time to mock religion. People were imprisoned, tortured, banished, and burned for disagreeing with religion, for thousands of years. You're going to begrudge me a little mockery? If I can knock it down another peg, I'm going to.
And remember, I'm in the minority by a vast margin. Why am I the one who is better able to handle this so-called intolerance?
To be honest, hee hee, you're pretty much trolling and I'm ignoring most of your comments in threads other than mine. But you aren't specifically calling everyone who has any belief in some kind of religion an idiot, brainwashed, etc. It's just not helping. It's childish name calling rather than useful discourse.
I think it's useful. I have never had any success ever convincing any religious person of anything with reason.
You ignored my points, by the way. I meant them. I didn't mock you; I answered you very sincerely. You just completely ignored what I said and repeated your point in slightly different words.
Have the last word, I'm signing off anyway.
The problem with your statement is that... somewhere along the line, people have come to think "humor" is belittling, or disrespectful. It serves as a shield to revile, abuse, or marginalize others. Disrespect and rudeness is so rampant in our society that you have become numb to it... unless it was directed at you. In the words of Ellen Degenerous, "If you were being funny, then we would both be laughing."
I reserve the right to disrespect any idea. I can't help it. Some ideas deserve to be mocked.
I respect people by default. I can't help that either. But people can lose that respect; I don't dole it out equally.
Everyone is the same way, whether they admit it or not.
hee hee... so you admit that you just hide behind humor as a way to mock and belittle. At least that's something. You actually prove my point. You are disrespectful and this this is some sort of "right" you have. Well... sure, you can say anything you want. But generally... decent people refrain from mocking others deeply held beliefs. If you don't get that... well... you didn't spend enough time with your grandparents I guess. Also... your statement that you respect people is inherently incorrect. You cannot respect others... and belittle or mock their beliefs. Don't get that either? See... you tell yourself that you are a good and decent person, and that you respect others... but it's just not logically true. You can't have it both ways.
I said that I respect them by default. That means: that is my initial position, until I learn more about them. No contradiction. You also need to brush up on the meanings of some of the other words you're using, such as "inherently". Maybe you didn't spend enough time with books.
Do you think we should treat every idea equally, and deserving of respect? Can I mock the belief that the sun goes around the earth, however deeply that belief is held by some people? At one time, that was a deeply held belief – I believe the church had a hand in hanging on to it for a bit longer than was necessary. Religious organizations have imprisoned, tortured, banished, and burned people for disagreement. You're going to begrudge me some mockery?
By the way, when you say that I'm not decent (indirectly, but clearly) and didn't spend enough time with my grandparents, what are you doing? Is that disrespect? Jeez, I would have preferred a joke, or an articulate post. I suppose that's harder to master than sanctimony.
sheep and goat is two different languages
"generally... decent people refrain from mocking others deeply held beliefs"
People we would probably agree are decent do refrain from mocking deeply held beliefs, but only so far as those beliefs are not believed to be harmful. I would suggest that it is not only accepted, but considered a social tool, to mock someone who deeply believes they shouldn't have to pay child support for their children or someone who believes their race is more deserving. Except for the few fringe people who really do believe that social scorn serves no purpose, what we're really looking at then is a difference in what two people think is socially harmful and therefore a proper subject for the corrective action of social scorn.
Honey, I'm not Christian, I just don't believe that screaming at people about how their desire to believe in a religion makes them "idiots" or horrible in some way. Honestly, I live in Texas and am a liberal. I understand how utterly frustrating it is to have someone use their religion against me. I just lost most of my reproductive rights to an idiot governor's idea of morality. But yelling at people who just happen to believe the same thing as some jerk isn't exactly helping matters any.
People are drawn to warmth and compassion, not hateful name-calling. If more atheists could at least pretend to be kind, compassionate people rather than hateful anti-religious bigots, then more people would probably follow suit.
Growing up on the internet and having a heck of a lot more influences than your parents and the pastor has to be a big part of the trend. Younger generations are rejecting the Judeo-Christian-Islamic mythology and replacing it with reason, logic, and human kindness and decency...what's the problem???
Jim, the problem for this women is that she still wants to hang on to some of those myths. I know many like her. They still wish to belong to a faith community (her words), but are bright enough to understand that most of the mumbo jumbo was just that. When these type of people have kids it really messes with them.
Religion provides the structure of many cultures and people want the 'church wedding', the 'first communion' and many other very beautiful ceremonies that tie our families and communities together. Death becomes sweeter when the deceased friends and relatives can share their grief together and religion provides that framework. Most people want religion to be a touchstone of good in their lives, and are willing to suspend reality to an extend as a small price. It is the crazies that pervert religion to gain power over others that are spoiling it for us all in this country. A pox on all of them.
Atheist or believer, we are all humans, and humans are social animals, just as our planet is pretty much a social planet in that nature's processes of recycling and interconnection help our planet thrive. The urge for religion comes from a human desire to have an authentic connect to being and consciousness and an understanding/explanation of why we are here, why is there something rather than nothing. Some people find it in science, understanding natural processes, some find it in religion, having a father figure that is unconditionally loving, or in some cases, loving and punitive. The problem arises when SOME atheists and SOME religious persons find it difficult to feel they have the right answer unless they can convince everyone else to their beliefs and thus, validate those beliefs for them. In the end, we want to belong, feel validated, be able to give and receive love. People find that in many different places, if they find it. We are a very young species in this wild cosmos, and we know very, very little about it, though we think we are so smart. For me, one must lead with one's heart and head. And for me, whether you're atheist or religious, if your heart isn't open and connected to your planet and your species, your philosophy and/or religion has failed you. Or you've failed it.
Well said, Millie!
Millie: Consider the possibility that some people have an agenda other than convincing themselves.
I think your agenda is to convince yourself of your own open-mindedness.
See how that works? Your observation works in almost any situation.
One thing she left out in her list of things that evangelilcals are often times hostile towards are people of color.
Try that again, catholic.
I'm 72 and have been exposed to the Baptist Church all my life and I cannot tell you how much I completely agree with what is said here. When will they ever learn, when will they ever learn.
people are leaving the church because they're realizing you don't need religion to be a good person. they're leaving because aside from the messages of love, the church also teaches messages of hatred and bigotry. they're leaving because of education and the internet. they're leaving because they can see what a sham religion is.
God is love and God loves His creation, and you were created in His image. God made man with a "free will", that is you may choose to behave as you wish, but all behavior has consequences. God has asked man to live in a moral and upright manner, but God does not require man to be a performing creation, but a creation that chooses to live a moral and upright life. God has clearly stated the "rules" for a moral and upright life, the living is left up to man. God came to earth as Jesus Christ to take on the sins of the world and all sin to come, if mankind would only accept the sheding of blood freely given to redeam mankind from sin and open a door directly to the Father. You have that choice to live a moral and upright life according to God's rules, not man's rules. God continues to love mankind, but not some of mankind's behavior. I can not change what is in your heart, I can only live true to what is in my heart, and that is to love my neighbor as I love myself.
I don't see this as a message of hate, only a message that encourages a moral and updright life.
There is no free will if there is only one right answer. To call it free will and establish only one answer is to create a sick game and essentially a lie. Can't rightly sell God is great, peaceful, kind and well meaning, and you better make all the choices he wants you to make at the same time. That's a tyrant. Your description is the same sales pitch many monarchies have given through out the ages. "Feel free to hunt in the kinds forrest. Just remember if you choose to your hut will burn and family may experience some intense pains." "Look, we're here to look out for you. All you have to do is X. Is that so hard? I mean, I'd hate for something bad to happen to you. You know, you die a thousand deaths or something. But you know, you can do what you want." It's like the mafia offering protection. That's not legitimate free will.
That's not to say there aren't good lessons and rules in the Bible, but there needs to be a basis beyond, I said so followed by a threat for it to be legitimate and not tyrannical. The rules need to further a positive purpose not just exist as one more reason to punish people.
Perhaps the Religious Right movement has run its course. Falwell is dead and Robertson is as old as the hills and has said so many stupid things that he no longer has any credibility. Younger people realize how ridiculous their anti-gay diatribes were. Maybe we can enter into a new era of sensibility and acceptance for people as they are.
me too! (Im 35)
M'dear, you are not a millennial. You, like me (at almost-29), are a product of Gen-Y. It's a distant memory, sure, but we know what life was like before cell phones and the internet. Millennials do not.
Millennials are described as those born in the 80's and 90's. Like she says, she barely qualifies as one, having been born in 81.
Only because Gen Y tends to get squeezed out... everyone leaps from Gen X to Millennials, but Gen Y are those born in the 80s, and Millennials were born starting in the mid-90s. Of course, a lot of folks just lump Gen Y in with the Millenials, but there are tremendous cultural differences between the groups.
Generation Y, also known as the Millennial Generation, is the demographic cohort following Generation X. There are no precise dates for when Generation Y starts and ends. Commentators use beginning birth dates from the early 1980s to the early 2000s.
That was meant as a response to Cleo. Gen Y is the same thing as a millennial.
Only by some definitions. Those born in the 80s and early 90s are pretty distinct from those born after cell phones and the internet.
People born at any time in the 90s had cell phones and the internet in their formative years. I had full internet access in 1994 and I don't think there were many people without access, at least at school, it by about 2000. Even people born in 1985 would mostly fit this description, and even those born in the late 70s or early 80s had the internet in college.
Church is what Christ started. Who are we to change what Christ started? You are saying we should just make up a Church to fit what you believe. I will stick with Christ. Thanks!
Because Christ IS God
So decided a council of Bishops in the fourth century. Good thing they were right, because otherwise you'd be wasting your life because of an accident of history.
FSM! All hail His Meatiness, the Spaghe-deity!
Do you honestly believe that the "church" today (which is so widely varied in core beliefs that it really isn't fair to claim much similarity within intself) is what Christ started? He was a Jew. There were no "Christians" until about 100 years after he was executed by the Romans. Even then there was no set "church" until a council of bishops got together and decided what was to become orthodox.
The church does not = Christ. Not by a long shot.
Brian, the assertion that Christians were only called those later on is contrary to historical evidence. Acts 11:26 – Where Christians were first called that at Antioch. If you contend that the manuscript variants change or are unreliable about this verse, you'll have to come up with something more than conjecture. Hope this helps.
Good point – thanks for the catch. The Jews that follwed the teachings of Jesus were called Christians fairly early on, but they were still Jews. They were another sect, along with the Pharisees, Saducees, Essenes, and Zealots. And yes, it was more along the lines of about 40 years after Jesus' death that the Christians broke with Judaism.
But just as Martin Luther never intended to break with the Catholic Church (and yet somehow there are those who are determined to believe that Evangelical Protestants are the "true believers"), Jesus never said anything about starting a new group.
i agree. finally someone who knows roman history. christ was a jew! and i think even though being born a catholic, i feel more in line with judism if i were to practice a religion. i gave up on organized religion decades ago!
Jesus never said anything about starting a new group?
1. My kingdom is not of this world: (John 18:36) – Therefore, Jesus' legacy was supposed to have nothing to do with existing hierarchies.
2. Jesus opposed to Jewish traditions of the day (Matt. 15:1-20) – Therefore, the teachings of Jesus were in opposition to the experts, and traditions that existed at that time.
3. Jesus taught beliefs other than the common belief of the households (Matt. 10:32-24) – Therefore Jesus was entirely opposed to believing in what existed in 'Palestine' at that time.
4. Jesus initiated his own new covenant unlike the Old Testament (Covenant). His own followers only followed this new covenant. Therefore, it was a new group. No other Jewish sects followed the New Covenant (Luke 22:20).
Therefore, Jesus did start his own group. Hope this helps.
Jesus was Jewish, for he had a Jewish mother and father. However, you'll have to do somersaults to believe that he was here to continue the existing faith.
Jesus taught different views from what was "common" in the day, sure. But that doesn't mean that he ever intended to create his own "church" or religion. If you read Jewish history, there were plenty of rabbi's that tought similar things, like Rabbi Hillel (who taught peace and the Golden Rule). Sure, he had followers, and so did Hillel and other rabbi's. Just because he taught things differently and called out the "holier-than-thous" and revealed more of God's intention through Scripture doesn't mean that he intended for a totally separate religious group to form. That's a logical fallacy called "Post hoc ergo propter hoc" or "After the fact therefore because of the fact."
No, that's not what she's saying. She doesn't want the church to change its beliefs. Rather, she is calling to a return to the teachings of Christ in their entirety, not just the ones we think we should emphasize and not just a change in style. Maybe read the article again.
So Catholics are NOT Christians? I only ask because you appear to believe there is only one valid church. So which one is it? Which one understands the true meaning? Please tell me us so everyone knows which Christian churches are the frauds.
Protestants typically do not believe that Catholics are Christians. Or Mormons ... or JW's ... the Mormon thing is particularly amusing, as we watched the hard core 'Christian' Right hopping into the theological sack with Mitt and Glen Beck after decades upon decades of damning them all as heretics. But it's OK now; Billy Graham said so. At least up till Mitt lost. Now perhaps they are going to back to despising them all.
News flash. Catholics were the only Christians for 1500 years until the reformation. Martin Luther was a priest. The condemnation of Catholics as not Christians is enacted because of the rejection of Apostolic succession of the pope.
Because "of personal example of Jesus Christ" (blanks filled)
@Motion Suggests Itself, to fill in your blank...True Christianity is NOT a religion, but a relationship. We get way off the track when we add religion into the equation. Religion has a set of rules that we apply to others as a weapon but do not live by those rules ourselves. Jesus only gave us one commandment in the New Testament which is found in John 13:34-35 (and the parallel verses) "...A new commandment I give you, love one another as I have loved you, htat you also love one another..." When we get this figured out, then maybe we can walk with our friends who might be struggling.
Sorry. Jebus started no such thing. There was no word in Hebrew for a "church". He was Jew. He kept the Jewish festivals, and did their rituals. His followers were JEWS for hundreds of years. In the year 400, St. John Chrysostom, in his Christmas sermon, was yelling at his congregation to STOP going to the synagogue. Which of the 31,000 sects is the one he started ?
The Church has been around for 2,000 years. Don't worry, she's not going anywhere 😉
All those lofty aspirations – and then she listed Catholicism as something she is drawn to. Huh?
I could be wrong, but she may be referring to the spiritual practices and liturgy of the church rather than the misogyny and weird saint worship.
I agree the spiritual practices and liturgy are compelling. I haven't found misogyny or saint worship though I know those accusations are bandied about erroneously.
St Thomas Aquinas on women
"By taking the vow of virginity or of consecrated widowhood and thus being betrothed to Christ, they are raised to the dignity of men, through which they are freed from subordination to men and are immediately united with Christ."
"The reliability of a person's evidence is weakened, sometimes indeed on account of some fault of his...; sometimes, without any fault on his part, and this owing either to a defect in the reason, as in the case of children, imbeciles and women, or to personal feeling..."
More charming thoughts about women on which Catholic church policies are based can be found here:
The ideas popular, at least among lay Catholics, may have changed, but the policies of the church are still based on these very misogynist ideas.
Thomas Aquinas was, of course, a thirteenth century Catholic. I'm sure we can both agree that throughout the centuries any number of opinions might be found and used as selected evidence Sara. Here's one I like from a Bishop in this century, Fulton Sheen:
The level of any civilization is the level of its womanhood. The reason is to be found in the difference between knowing and loving. When we know something, we bring it down to the level of our intelligence. Examples of abstract subjects must be given to children to suit the level of their minds. But when we love something, we always have to go up to meet it. For example, if we want to master music, we must obey its laws and meet its demands. Since a woman is loved, it follows that the nobler a woman is, the nobler man will have to be to be deserving of that love. That is why the level of any civilization is always the level of its womanhood.15
When men, assisted by grace, recognize the excellence of femininity by encouragement and praise of feminine virtues, women will teach men how to love. Civilization will be raised from the depth of selfishness and despair to the height of selflessness and hope.
I did not disagree, Bill, that sentiments have changed over the centuries, however church policies regarding the role of women and their ability to make their own se xual decisions were created back at a time when women were very clearly almost universally thought of as inferior, second class citizens. What the church has done is got itself into a position where policy cannot keep up with changed beliefs because it would be an admission of error. This is a huge problem that leads to misogyny in practice as well as in thought. I refer you back toyourownargument that women past menopause can be trusted to make their own descisions about when to have se x, but that women who are still of childbearing age and functionality cannot. This is at best non-sensical and at worst condescending and disrespectful.
You misrepresent me and the Church in the same sentence almost. I never made the argument that women cannot be trusted to make their own decisions regarding their own lives. Secondly to categorize the Church's teaching on artificial birth control as misogynistic is one of the most unscrupulously low tactics the feminists and abortionist condescend to. I wish I could say I expected more from you Sara but I suspect you are incapable of stating the Churches actual position and are forced to use the canard of repressing women because it's all you can understand.
Here, btw, is where you Fulton Sheen explains how men are more rational and women more intuitive in what I see as condescending se xist terms. I think you're going to find few women who are going to go along with his, albeit skillfully worded, description of the higher rationality of males. His basic approach seems to be "men are smarter but women are more loving so that makes up for it", which is essentially insulting women in something males see as valuable while pretending to make up for it by complimenting something makes generally see as less valuable.
How some Catholic women view Mary:
Mary represents the strength and dignity of Catholic women, because of the fiat and she helplessly witnessed her son’s agonizing death. There is a special bond between mother and son, so the bond between Mary and Jesus is extraordinary. The amount of mental anguish Mary suffered during Christ’s journey to death is immeasurable, yet she endured it.
During my own trials and tribulations, I find comfort in knowing that Mary will be at my side. Through the power of prayer any Catholic women can endure life’s sorrows and joys with the most blessed Virgin, full of grace, as an intercessor to God.
Is this a quote from somewhere?
It's a quote from an article on a Catholic Women's website from a female author. I found it representative of many women I know and their attiitude on Mary.
Could you post the link?
Ok, got it:
Today is the feast day of Saint Teresa Benedicta of the Cross. Born Jewish, Edith Stein converted to Catholicism on the 1920's. She spent her vocation in hospitals in Europe and was an outspoken critic of the German National Socialist Party. She and her sister were arrested and imprisoned where they were later murdered. She was canonized by John Paul the Second in 1987. She and Maximillian Kolbe are the patron Saints of modern Europe.
At masses all over the world today, Catholic will be reminded of Edith Stein and her life of faith. We are urged to follow her example in speaking out against evil.
Millenials have a better BS meter?? I don't mean to sound harsh, but that's hysterical. Being a high school teacher, (I'm a boomer and have worked with millenials) I'm fnding that the vast majority of millenials and younger are intellectually lazy and lack higher critical thinking and questioning skills that are key to having a BS meter in the first place. This author mentions wanting science and religion to agree. There is a plethora of scientists that are advocates of "intelligence design". That information IS out there and often discussed at churches or bible studies that I attend. In addition, the LGBT research is indicating that there is NO gay gene. The scientists working on mapping the human genome said as much over 5 years ago, but that information is all but ignored. Guess that wonder BS meter wasn't working to well even then??
That's why I believe most of them are finding atheism fashionable, because it requires very little of them emotionally, intellectually and emotionally. And they don't have to answer to a God for their decisions. Jesus said in the end times that knowledge will increase, and he also said "there will be scoffers".
You want Jesus – that's great! But which Jesus are we talking about? The one of the scriptures or the Jesus that'll love you up like a big cuddly golden retriever? The one that requires both repentance and faith for salvation?? Or the one that tells you repentance doesn't matter as long as you believe?
Yes, belief in "intelligence design" is a sign of a sharp and critical mind.
We know this, because there are lotsa scientists who advocate it.
The millennials I know can see that you full of BS so I would say their meter is working just find.
I do agree that science hasn't determine if being gay is genetic or not. But that shouldn't change the fact they should be given the same rights as others.
Where did I state that they shouldn't???
So why mention gays if you feel they should have equal rights and support their right to SSM. A view you know is NOT consistant with evangelical churches.
How old to you feel the earth is? If you don't believe it is less than 10K or so than you're just like this women; You pick and choose what parts of the bible to believe.
You are not only NOT a teacher, you appear woefully uneducated; if these kids are lacking in intellect it is because they have teachers like you in the classrooms.
You have ignored every scientific advance in favor of the religious stereotypes. Please resign your teaching post soon.
I'd challenge you to sit in a high school for a week Carolyn – seriously. AND I usually only have a student for 50 minutes max 5 days a week for 18 weeks maximum, and if you think you can turn a child around in that amount of time – then you should have gone into education because you're obviously a miracle worker. But more often than not I see helicopter parents that hadn't taught even basic manners and the ability of their child to listen and respect their teachers.
I do see some great kids, but they are a minority. But again, I challenge you to go and sit in one some of your local high schools before you judge me or any other teacher. See what teachers have to contend with in the classroom.
What many of us are judging is your critical thinking skills.
Carolyn, you talk like you know this teacher really well. Even if she denies one aspect of science, how does that equate denying all of it? These kind of intellectually-lazy black and white remarks don't add anything to the conversation and certainly aren't going to bring people over to your side.
If I read that a teacher says that the idea that the sun goes around the earth is a serious alternative to the heliocentric model, then I know that this teacher is not serious about science. Would you agree? If not, we part ways intellectually.
Intelligent design is much like that. Belief in intelligence design is a very strong indicator of one's lack of general science knowledge.
The millennials you know appear to lack critical thinking skills only because they've been taught-to-the-test all their lives. They aren't ALLOWED to develop critical thinking skills, but are encouraged to consume, consume, consume. The author is Gen-Y, and we DID get pretty good BS meters, having been advertised-to all our lives (as the author notes) and having spent our formative years without cell phones and the internet (millennials grew up with both of these things.) Like Gen-X, we were latch-key children, and learned to fend for ourselves pretty early on.
Do share the names of the 'plethora' of scientists you speak of, please.
Destain for those younger then you is what blinds you to the truth, you may have some lazy students, but you can't expect them to care about what you are trying to teach if you cannot or will not give them the respect a developing human deserves.
Thank you! This generation are all talk. The best BS!
"Intelligence design?" Or Intelligent design? Regardless, I say you don't have much critical thinking skills in you. Where do babies come from? Really, be honest. Once you know that present day babies are a product of coitus and in utero cell division, it's kind of hard to believe that the first humans where fashioned from clay and given a breath of life. Think about this.
If you are a teacher and your students are intellectually stunted then you have failed at your vocation. Your job is to inspire kids to want to learn, but if all they get from you is disdain, then aren't your really just cashing a paycheck? Kids deserve teachers who inspire and can get them thinking, they are children, not adults. Every previous generation has said the same thing you are about the one that follows, it takes a great teacher to find what inspires them and gets them thinking. Seems like your teaching methods are a lazy as you call your students.
What a completely BS performance. Kumbiyah with concentric circles in her eyes. Same old nonsense in modernish consumerist packaging. Science is becoming too accesible to modern minds for the ludicrous mythology to survive much longer, in the real scheme of earth history. Its getting to the point where prostelytizing and drooling are taking on identical social stigmas. Just how dense can you get? and all that.
Reading your post, it is obvious that you are in no condition whatsoever to question the "BS" meters of millennials, as you lack one yourself. A high school teacher? While that's absolutely adorable, you're in no position to comment on scientists and higher critical thinking. There are virtually no scientists advocating for "intelligent design" in any concrete terms. Because there is absolutely No. Evidence. Whatsoever. To. Support it.
None. Zilch. Nada.
If they are religious, more power to them. But a study conducted not long ago of 1,000 scientists found that only about 10% were believers, and even less believed in 'intelligent design'. And why should they? Again, it doesn't even meet the criteria of 'theory'. Because theories at least have evidence to support them.
For the time being, belief in a supreme creator and intelligent design remain firmly in the territories of faith; i.e., belief despite a complete lack of evidence.
Your completely tangential rant about the gay and lesbian gene just further belies your general ignorance, and why belief is faltering. Nobody CARES whether it's genetic or not. Because it doesn't matter. Whether people are born gay or not, it's up to them, and the opinions of believers such as yourself who pretend to know more than they actually do are entirely irrelevant. What matters is treating others with respect and dignity, and letting them live their lives.
Basically, your rant betrays the smallness of your mind. You are a small, hateful little person stuck teaching high school and thinking more of themselves than they're worth. Looking down on students and passing judgment on others, a great many of which are probably your betters, and will go on to do better things with minds that are far more open.
So you go on, absolutely certain that you've got it all figured out. That is, after all, the hallmark of religion. Pretending you know more than you actually do, to stroke your ego and feel better about yourself. Your post. It reeks of it.
OMG I just LOL'd!
Colin -You post "atheism continues its slow percolation down the intellectual ranks. One day soon, only the really intellectually enfeebled will still believe in sky fairies" is correct but a very sensitive issue. I respect the sensitivity when discussing IQ vs religiosity. This aspect has come up many times in issues of Scientific American. How do we address the issue of IQ without hurting the feelings of others. Do we ignore the data? (40 out of 43 studies indicate as IQ increases the belief in god decreases) The answer to you regarding religions as fact or myth I am sure is obvious. I am guessing that you were most comfortable questioning a belief system that may or may not have been imparted on you as a child. If the case is you were presented a religion as a child your intellect carried you over the threshold of needing security-and questioning took place. Of course maybe your parents were simply not religious .
I went to Sunday School as a child. In my mind back then religion needed to be logical to be true. So I went to the library to see if Jesus started in the part of the world that had the highest population. You would not want to spread your ideas anyplace else. That was my first clue-no he did not start in the most populous area. My second logical thought. If god is so loving he would make sure we would hear the word directly from him so nothing is misunderstood. No games. He loves me and wants me to follow his rules. He would appear every generation or so. Second strike. I saw my grandparents die horrible deaths from cancer. Would a loving god allow cancer to kill my grandparents slowly instead of a quick heart attack. Strike three! I felt comfortable challenging what I was being taught. Of course the sensitive issue then comes into play. Where do I and all of my atheist friends stack up on the sensitive IQ scale? Instead of discussing myself-I will state all of my friends are either doctors in the medical field or achieved a doctorate in their field of work. This issue is indeed most sensitive.
Oh please. Since higher education is advocating for atheism a great deal, those with higher IQ's, but not necessarily critical thinking skills that require questioning are being indoctrinated FOR atheism. You have a chicken or egg argument here. What came first – higher IQ or atheism? Unfortunately, that argument is disingenuous and intellectually lazy.
BTW, I have a high IQ and am a person of faith.
You remain a person of faith only because you haven't used your intellect to actually READ the Bible. It's hard for any intelligent person to rationalize the errors, fallacies, contradictions, brutalities, ethical quandaries, historical inaccuracies...
I've read the English translations as well as the Hebrew (I know a bit of Hebrew btw), and a smattering of Aramaic as well as Greek. I've even investigated some of the Bible codes, which is interesting to say the least, and regularly keep abreast with archaeological discoveries that more often then not confirm the historical accuracy of the text. I content that YOU haven't read it in any more than a shallow reading. I content that you've probably taken a basic college theology course at best, but haven't delved into it with any curiosity or depth. You simply parrot back what you've been told the Bible says.
Probably get all you information from what?? The History Channel presents???
People with critical thinking can see right through religion. Religion is for the dumb heard that can't think or know how to live a normal life.
Obviously high IQ came first. Atheism can't make a dumb person smart. But a smart person can easily see the absurdity of religion.
Regarding "What came first – higher IQ or atheism? Unfortunately, that argument is disingenuous and intellectually lazy." Your point has no relation to the argument at hand. Regarding your comment about intellectually lazy--hardly intellectually lazy-when one considers 43 studies!
"Since higher education is advocating for atheism a great deal, those with higher IQ's, but not necessarily critical thinking skills that require questioning are being indoctrinated FOR atheism. "
Your comment reeks of generalization and inaccuracy. Neither the subjects of religion or atheism were ever brought up by a university employee (from my thesis advisor on down to the office assistants) during my PhD (or my BS for that matter). Critical thinking skills on the other hand were a necessity. Those without them washed out early.
"Since higher education is advocating for atheism a great deal, those with higher IQ's, but not necessarily critical thinking skills that require questioning are being indoctrinated FOR atheism. "
Your comment reeks of generalization and inaccuracy. Neither the subjects of religion or atheism were ever brought up by a university employee (from my thesis advisor on down to the office admins) during my PhD (or my BS for that matter). Critical thinking skills on the other hand were a necessity. Those without them washed out early.
"Since higher education is advocating for atheism a great deal, those with higher IQ's, but not necessarily critical thinking skills that require questioning are being indoctrinated FOR atheism. "
Your comment reeks of generalization and inaccuracy. Neither the subjects of religion nor atheism were ever brought up by a university employee (from my thesis advisor on down to the office admins) during my PhD. Critical thinking skills on the other hand were a necessity. Those without them washed out early.
The IQ item is not even a consideration, other than the one with a higher IQ can more readily appreciate what God said and do what he wants done. If you are claiming you have a higher IQ, be ready to explain to God why you didn't use it. You were also given some level of desire to find God, if he is/was calling you, he will probably want to know what happened there too.... given these verses here:
Luk 12:46 The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for [him], and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not [himself], neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many [stripes]. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few [stripes]. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.
Got a high IQ? Get busy...
Regarding "be ready to explain to God why you didn't use it. ". Ahh the fear card. Sorry can see right through that one.
Though there be critical ones thinking among the topmost branches of civilizations trees of disparagement offerings: the rooted labyrinths of reasoned deducing ways offers little minded goodness to be availed unto the soulless seekers whose only wisdom is found within travesty's demonic exuberances laying wastefully towards all graven worded reconciliations that the demonic do behest against many a Holy Believer in and of God's most unrighteous beneficiaries as being an unholy divider in search of disenfranchised souls to devour and chew upon...
The gullibility's pragmatists are relationally transcribed be they overtly religious and even of the inverted against anything religious... The ever hardening of bitterness offerings runs ever continuously upon the mainstreamed religious waters unending motions... For without believer’s sanctifications who would be the beneficiaries witnesses..? Does not a cold-heart seek ever the warmth of another's heartfelt wondering ways..?
Assuredly does not truth come from the readings of the word and knowing of each and all words understandable meanings..? Where then does truth remain standing if meanings cannot be as devotional understandings..? Do not many people stop thinking becoming themselves as mindless beasts ever to be herded here to there and made to eat this thing and drink of the other thing..?
Toward my belief system, religion is a personal belief and should not be a sociable consideration... Anyone's beliefs upon religious conjuring séances should be held personally and not be centered by any socialism of the religiously clairvoyant which tends to conjure their weekly seminary séances upon the weakly enamored folks forsaking the doctrines oaths… Emotionalisms are where religious circles are deemed rented and the renters pay steeply for a yarn’s worth... Therefor keeps one's faith separated from religious teamsters who take and never give any causally rational explanations as to why there are reportedly many more of God's many sons then what Christendom so portends there to be…
Genesis 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they [were] fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
Genesis 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare [children] to them, the same [became] mighty men which [were] of old, men of renown.
Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.
Job 2:1 Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.
Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name:
Romans 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God
Romans 8:19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.
Philippians 2:15 That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;
1John 3:1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.
1John 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is
Überfanatical searching candlemas.
Bedsit meanderings. Beware.
You are a genius. You made my day.
Liked the article. Good read.
I am praying for you. Your heart seems to be in the right place but you are in err in many ways. Please find a Church of Christ and study with the elders there. Please let me know if I can get you more information...
What church would you recommend?
I am generation X, not raised in the church, but the church body is important for believers so that we may use our spiritual gifts to uplift the body of Christ and help the transformation process of restoring each other. This article makes great points, and relationships anywhere can be tough. But still we are called on to fellowship with the Body (by our Lord), so lets try not be too hard on one another. As Christians we are dealing with living in a world we don't belong; we still deal with sin and flesh, called on daily to nail our flesh (old self) to the cross. And we deal with an enemy ruling this world who does not want Gods servants to do Kingdoms work.
They need generational reconciliation, a safe place to explore, and an end to dogmatic nonsense and exclusion cloaked in piety.
With all due respect, you can't refer to a group of people as 'they' and then claim to know what that group needs.