The church my Father attends and preaches at holds a discussion period, an adult Sunday school if you will, immediately following the sermon. I wish more churches did this since I always find it is a great time to both find out what other people are thinking and to share a bit about what you think. A older, veteran missionary couple, people I have a great respect for sat in on the service and the following discussion period today. He posed the question “Why do you think so many of our youth lose their way and abandon their faith while in university?”
Several possible reasons were offered. The first was that we don’t pray for them enough, which is likely true but to me doesn’t address the fact that if they are going in unprepared, prayer may make them them bolder in their faith (which is good) but it will not suddenly cause them to be prepared. Preparation happens by way of years of both overt and nuanced conversations, experiences, and being specifically taught. It comes through years of rubbing shoulders with those in society who believe strongly and differently and whom you will eventually face anyway, so why not start them young? We all as parents want to protect our children from negative influences, and that again is good intent, but are we really protecting them when we rob them of those experiences that will test their faith and give them a first look at the real world or are we actually shielding them from a battle they need to learn to fight for their own good? It is much like the parent who allows the over-aged and fiscally irresponsible child to live with them on end, abusing what they meant as a helping hand, and somewhat inadvertently allowing him to proliferate his incompetence. Whether out of sympathy or what the parent believes to be love, this is clearly not true love. It might make the parent feel better, thinking that they are ‘helping out during a tough time’ but it is certainly not an avenue by which the child will have to eventually face the harsh reality of his actions and bear the consequences that come because of them. And because of that, by enabling the child to continue in his way with no serious attempt at correction, the parents are reducing the likelihood of his redemption; they are essentially stepping in the way of God’s plan.
My opinion on the matter is that there is a lack of intellectual preparation in the lives of most Christian youth. This is the fault of both the Church and the parents. From my personal experience, observing those of my friends who went to university, it was the first time that their faith faced any serious challenges. Youth from Christian homes spend their share of time in Church services, youth events, and some in Christian schools, but still too many of them have no strategy to face the world they inevitably will have to face, a world that will in most cases be opposed to almost everything they have known as normal.
Somehow the discussion turned to friendship evangelism, the need to show love rather than condemnation, and the importance of being good examples for our children. One man said that maybe making an intellectual defense of faith was not for everyone. If that is the case, I suggest that people who feel they are not thus predisposed never attend a university at all. Certainly it is true that some over-intellectualize their faith (I am probably one of them) and that some who are not overly inclined toward intellectualism will be wonderful examples of Christ’s love in factories and fields, but the question was about universities, and one goes to a university to expand and sharpen the intellect, so I think it is appropriate to expect any university student who professes a faith in Christ to be able to make an intellectual defense of that faith.
The visiting missionary was given a chance to rebut but squandered the opportunity on a very diplomatic “I agree with everything that was said here but…”. He was concerned with the lack of doctrine being taught to our youth (I am too); he was concerned that so few people even bother to bring their Bibles to church any more (I am too); he was alarmed at the low level at which the average Christian seems to function (I am too), but he kept coming back to doctrine. At some point near the end of his comment, while he was essentially reneging on his earlier commitment to diplomacy by disagreeing with a number of ideas just shared, he proclaimed emphatically “If we don’t have doctrine, we have nothing!” and this immediately struck me as the ironic opposite of doctrine itself because it brought to memory Chapter Thirteen of St. Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians where he says:
And if I have prophetic powers,
and understand all mysteries and all knowledge,
and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains,
but have not love,
I am nothing.
Paul doesn’t say love PLUS doctrine, or love PLUS faith, in fact he says that doctrine and faith are nothing if they are not empowered and delivered with love. Now, I know what this godly and respectable man was getting at – its the half-hearted or misdirected love that I described above, the thin form of love that claims itself to be a substitute for, rather than an enabler of faith and doctrine. But still, it seems ironic to me that he would place doctrine itself rather than love as the prime precursor as doctrine actually teaches.
As an addendum, this was followed by someone else with a view of an ecumenism that belittles doctrine and a comment about how foolish people think that unity can be found by saying specific doctrine really isn’t as important as we’ve made it out to be. It was stated, once again emphatically that “Real unity is found in strong doctrine!”, but in a very literal way, with plenty of available examples, this attitude has caused far more division than unity. The stronger and more defined a doctrine is, and the more adamant about the absolute truth of that doctrine the person who believes it is, the less chance there is of that person finding unity with anyone. We can split the hairs (and heirs) of our doctrinal heads until none of us believes anything exactly alike; this has been proven over and over again.
“Unity is the agreement not of minds but of wills” said Thomas Aquinas. That is a short yet profound way of saying that in order for unity to be, we do not need to agree intellectually on every small matter of doctrine. Unity is the commitment of wills to the cause of remaining together despite our reasonable differences. As long as we view unity as a state where everyone believes exactly the same, we will continue this same destructive pattern of leaving churches and starting churches over and over, of dividing into pieces so small that they are less than the sum of the whole.
Peter Kreeft, Professor of Philosophy at Boston College gave a lecture about ecumenism some time ago called “Ecumenism Without Compromise” that I think is worth listening to. Let me know what you think. —-> click here
Related posts:
- Choice, Belief, and the Necessity of Hell As far as believing in hell, whether you believe it is a literal, physical place of torment or a state of absolute alienation from God,...
- The God Delusion – Part 2 Teach Your Children Well Dawkins hypothesis of why someone like me is of the same religion as my parents involves what he calls “childhood indoctrination.”...
- Defining “Unchurched” and “Dechurched” (Renov8 #rv8) (All of my posts from Renov8 can be found here) At Renov8 this week we’ve talked a number of times about the categories of “dechurched”...
- A Detailed History of the Future 3 – Media and the Christian Believer I think it would be right to make a case that Christian believers always stand to lose more than they gain if they unthinkingly embrace...
- Glenn Smith – “Understanding Your Neighborhood” (Renov8 #rv8) (All of my posts from Renov8 will be at this page. Refresh (and comment) often.) Wednesday morning plenary session – Glenn Smith (bio). Glenn is...
Dear Mr Krahn,
A question for you: Why do you trouble yourself with religion i.e. Anabaptists (whatever they are) Protestants and the rest?
Did you know that Jesus Christ was not religious and that the word ‘religion’ never passed His lips.
y2t
Dear Mr Krahn,
Apologies for misplacing my earlier comment, it should have gone under the next article.
In answer to this article John 6:44 clearly states that no one can come to the Lord Jesus Christ unless the Father draws them to His Son. This verse beggars the question what if the Father is not drawing everyone to His Son in this age. Many are called but few are chosen and narrow is the gate etc.
Just because a Christian couple bring children into the world does not guarantee these children will be Born Again when adults, only the Father can determine this. Those who are not part of the first resurrection will be part of the second resurrection.
The intellect is an irrelevance when it comes to The Word of God. The Word of God is spiritually discerned not intellectually discerned. If the intellect was an issue then only ‘clever’ people would be called.
The paragraph starting with the quote from Thomas Aquinas really resonated with me.