Thanks to Lawton for passing on this link to a recent article in Relevant Magazine by Brandon Peach entitled Will the Internet Kill Christianity?
The article starts by citing the recent argument made by Christian apologist Josh McDowell suggesting that young people are rejecting Christian fundamentalism because of the Internet:
“What has changed everything?” Christian apologist Josh McDowell asked his audience on July 15 at the Billy Graham Center in Asheville, N.C. His talk, titled “Unshakeable Truth, Relevant Faith,” had detailed a certain uncomfortable fact in anticipation of the question: that young Christians in America are rejecting Christian fundamentalism—and doctrinaire concepts such as absolute truth and biblical infallibility—in droves. Why is faith in God being supplanted, earlier and earlier, by relativism, secularism and skepticism? McDowell’s answer was simple: the Internet.What, exactly, is going on with the Internet that is making this happen? According to McDowell, young Christians are being exposed early and often to secular and atheistic arguments found online. Peach seems to agree with this assessment, suggesting that the Internet is dominated by the voices of irreligion:
The fact is, a relationship between irreligion and the Internet was bound to happen. Religion has long enjoyed a culturally accepted free space in which to share rhetoric—the Church. Atheism has suffered the exact opposite. America’s wariness of (or its outright antagonism toward, in its greatest excesses) irreligion has forced atheism to the fringes of its society. What the Internet has provided is a free space for atheists in this nation to connect with those across the globe whose cultural milieus are more inviting of all brands of irreligion; indeed, some in which secularism is a majority viewpoint.I don't know if these assessments are correct. But I do think that marginalized voices at the local level can aggregate and gain steam, facilitated by the Internet, at the global level. That is, I don't think the Internet is more atheistic, but it is more pluralistic.
It is no wonder, therefore, that atheism is gaining steam in the U.S.
Regardless, I'm not sure what McDowell's solution is. Information quarantine?
Here's a radical idea. Rather than sticking our heads in the sand, why don't we come up with some better answers to the questions the kids are asking.
Thanks for this post :)
Could it be that concepts like Biblical Infallibility are, to paraphrase Marcus Borg, a 'modern Christian heresy' and the information and views on the Net are providing a backdrop to allow this to be seen more and more?
If the Churches are to be in anyway effective they really need to be more sophisticated, inclusive and subtle. Providing answers is really a very limited part of religion. And since the answers provided are not and can never be objective and quantifiable, to present them as 'true' in the same way that science has 'truths' just makes the churches look silly.
Guiding 'the kids' with religious myth, ritual, practice and scripture to know their own 'answers' to me seems the only sensible way to go.
Thanks :)
I think it has less to do with the Internet having too much information that the church providing too little.
I grew up going to Southern Baptist churches, so I know that fundamentalist Christianity dislikes questions. To begin with, there is a fear of even asking questions, since to admit that you are doubting what the church is teaching is akin to doubting God. But if you do get up the courage to ask questions, the answers received are often unhelpful or downright dismissive, especially when those questions are being asked by children and teenagers.
This was quite a problem for me. I like asking questions. But when I did ask questions of my Sunday School teachers and, later, of my pastors, I was made to feel guilty for questioning whether the Bible really was inerrant and infallible, or doubting that God would punish all non-Christians with eternal damnation even if they lived good lives. I was told that I would not have such questions if I was a true believer and that I should just simply pray harder and have faith in the Lord. Even worse, I was not-so-subtlety reminded that God hated "fake" believers and that my immortal soul was in danger. Eventually, I became so scared I just stopped asking questions.
It was the Internet which introduced me to new ways of looking at the Bible, faith and God. I went there, not because I wanted to become a "godless atheist" but because I wanted answers that my church refused me. It was the Internet that showed me I could believe in God without believing in eternal damnation or Biblical inerrancy.
If fundamentalist Christianity wants to keep young people in the church, they need to change their attitude towards questions. They have to realize that kids and teenagers ask challenging questions about the most important tenants of their faith and that if they do not get decent answers without a side of guilt-tripping, they are going to go elsewhere. When they do go to the Internet for answers (in the 21st century, that's inevitable unless you physically keep them from all computers), more likely than not they will be pulled away from their faith, especially if they are not prepared for the amount of criticism of fundamentalist Christianity or the many other ways to be a Christian, or just a theist, that they will encounter.
"Rather than sticking our heads in the sand, why don't we come up with some better answers to the questions the kids are asking. "
Agreed. The panic that fundamentalists seem to experience regarding the Internet is that flawed doctrines like inerrancy, creationism, and so on are greatly weakened by access to information and opposing viewpoints.
Amen. Having been in college ministry for years, this sounds like the old complaint that secular colleges are corrupting our children. I have met with many new students and their parents over the years. I can tell you first hand that most kids who "lost their faith in college" actually lost it before they got there. Parents and churches need to do more to foster faith than just dragging their kids to church each week. I used to tell church leaders that if I'm an intelligent kid, I'm going to trust those who teach me to think critically and distance myself from those who try to control information.
One thing I've noticed in many conservative circles is that often questions are answered with statements that are either inaccurate or oversimplified to the point where the interlocutor themselves wouldn't believe them.
[The same thing is true in less conservative circles, but I have less experience there, and the dynamic is somewhat different].
So an over-simplistic answer to one of the many problems the Bible throws up once question leads to doubt over the entire system of faith.
I think there is a certain truth in the contention that catechism of some kind is the answer - as long as that addresses both belief and practice.
I think they themselves and their fearful attitudes about everything that is not American and Christian as being of Satan which is causing the demise of Christianity. Long may it lay dead.
('Cause the best of Christ will survive and even flourish and flower out of the compost of fundamentalist Christianity).
Hi Everyone,
If you get a chance, head on over to Arni Zachariassen's blog to consider his very interesting take on McDowell's assessment and the Relevant article: http://www.arnizachariassen.com/ithinkibelieve/?p=2683
Augustine called those who interpret scripture literally and in competition with the science of his day "feeble little creatures," intellectually. (Bk. 12, Ch. 27, Confessions) For a very long time it was possible for such feeble little creatures to survive, because they were protected by an anti-intellectualism held in place by pseudo-intellectual leadership. When the anti- and pseudo-intellectualism go--as they must when lay Christians are challenged by non-Christians directly--perhaps we will be able to find out what a beautiful presence the Church can become.
As a former journalist, my eyebrows always go up a little when someone's argument is essentially, "Kids today have too much access to information." If your answers aren't good enough (or nonexistent), that's not the Internet's fault, nor is it the fault of "relativism, secularism and skepticism." It means you need better answers, or at the very least a more open method of communicating your lack of certainty on the answers.
But, of course, that wouldn't be "evidence that demands a verdict." It would be ambiguity, and that seems to be scarier for the Christians of McDowell's generation than the Christians of the generation about which he's worried. I think this explains much of why the church has done so poorly in addressing tough questions of the kind discussed by you, Rachel Held Evans, Rob Bell, etc. There's still a belief that saying "I don't know" or acknowledging that sometimes faith means not having a pat answer is bad for the brand, if you will, when in fact some authenticity about this reality would do a great deal to restore it.
Just Wondering: It seems to me that Atheism is as absolutist as the Calvinism I grew up in and have since left. Do any others see it that way? I am concerned that as atheism grows, a new kind of doctrinaire fundimentalism will grow with it because it is still based on an absolute, not on relationship. Is there something about the non-relational relationship basis of the internet that ecourages a facade of "truth" to atheism as viable without basis in a relationship?
Underlying summary of this is "truth is a relationship" for self exposure here.
Hey Chuck, in my experience there are as many Atheisms as there are Christianities. Not every atheist is a fundamentalist like Richard Dawkins. Have a look at the Christian atheism of Pete Rollins for a completely different take. In one of his books NT Wright carefully calls himself an atheist - as in "I don't beleive in that construction you have just called 'god', but I do beleive in the God revealed in Jesus ..."
The early Christians were called atheists by one Roman commentator because they did not show proper respect to the Gods!
Since the Internet is in fact more pluralistic in nature and that the fundamental walls of society that are typically there in most other aspects of life are not to be found online (I'm thinking actually limits of space, time, and sometimes real walls), that there is a unique freedom of expression that the internet has allowed - whether that be by the anonymity of the internet, or the sudden discovery that there are other people who think like you out there. These have allowed us to be more true to who we are, at least perhaps online.
So, I think I agree to what you have alluded to, that it is not the internet itself that is ruining fundamentalism. I may be fundamentalism itself, or at least the way it is preach, portrayed, etc. The recent addition of the internet in our lives has only exploited pre-existing weaknesses of this fundamentalism. Before the internet, one would have to go out of his or her way to disagree with doctrine, family, friends, community and church. Now all we have to do is have Wi-Fi in our home. If anything, it seems that the internet has encouraged/influenced us to think more independently - to have more time away from social forces and influences - and therefore question the establishments we are involved in and the faith that we stand by. Now of course, those who think in black and white terms and who are by correlation stereo-typically fundamentalistic feel threatened by this tremendous blow to the core of their system - conformity. Conformity to orthodoxy and orthopraxy. Does a fundamentalist feel threatened in media culture? You betcha.
What we need are better answers, maybe. We certainly need the vulnerablility to say, "You know, I just don't know, this is my best educated guess" about our faith and practice. The younger generation's exposure to a pluralistic internet is only a reflection of the reality of a pluralistic world - fundamentalists just have a much harder time stopping this exposure to the rest of the world.
To such pluralistically educated youth, the black and white thinking and preaching of fundamentalists does not make sense to what their experience has taught them about the world and thus find it much easier to reject such a worldview. Within a pluralistic culture, what those generations yearn for is honesty, vulnerability, and authenticity - those are the things that attract them. They are looking for people who give credence to the reality of a pluralistic world and yet make some sort of a statement of faith, in humility, on which they stand. They are lost in a sea of different viewpoints and worldviews and have no guidance has to where to lay anchor so they end up with an apathetic view towards it all. They need someone who is willing to be honest with them and tell them that they see it all too, the viewpoints, faiths, worldviews, and yet has the courage to take a risk and make a choice amongst it all.
That is what we need to teach the youth of this generation. That is what they want/need to hear. We cannot cower in fear of the pluralism of this world, of those who think and live differently from us. We cannot try to hide it from youth or ourselves, we need to lead by example and have the honesty to admit the reality of pluralism and have the strength of will and character to take a risk in making a choice one way or the other (all the while acknowledging the risk involved in making that choice instead of blindly and dishonestly suggesting that we have the answer without a doubt).
Since the Internet is in fact more pluralistic in nature and that the fundamental walls of society that are typically there in most other aspects of life are not to be found online (I'm thinking actually limits of space, time, and sometimes real walls), that there is a unique freedom of expression that the internet has allowed - whether that be by the anonymity of the internet, or the sudden discovery that there are other people who think like you out there. These have allowed us to be more true to who we are, at least perhaps online.
So, I think I agree to what you have alluded to, that it is not the internet itself that is ruining fundamentalism. I may be fundamentalism itself, or at least the way it is preach, portrayed, etc. The recent addition of the internet in our lives has only exploited pre-existing weaknesses of this fundamentalism. Before the internet, one would have to go out of his or her way to disagree with doctrine, family, friends, community and church. Now all we have to do is have Wi-Fi in our home. If anything, it seems that the internet has encouraged/influenced us to think more independently - to have more time away from social forces and influences - and therefore question the establishments we are involved in and the faith that we stand by. Now of course, those who think in black and white terms and who are by correlation stereo-typically fundamentalistic feel threatened by this tremendous blow to the core of their system - conformity. Conformity to orthodoxy and orthopraxy. Does a fundamentalist feel threatened in media culture? You betcha.
What we need are better answers, maybe. We certainly need the vulnerablility to say, "You know, I just don't know, this is my best educated guess" about our faith and practice. The younger generation's exposure to a pluralistic internet is only a reflection of the reality of a pluralistic world - fundamentalists just have a much harder time stopping this exposure to the rest of the world.
To such pluralistically educated youth, the black and white thinking and preaching of fundamentalists does not make sense to what their experience has taught them about the world and thus find it much easier to reject such a worldview. Within a pluralistic culture, what those generations yearn for is honesty, vulnerability, and authenticity - those are the things that attract them. They are looking for people who give credence to the reality of a pluralistic world and yet make some sort of a statement of faith, in humility, on which they stand. They are lost in a sea of different viewpoints and worldviews and have no guidance has to where to lay anchor so they end up with an apathetic view towards it all. They need someone who is willing to be honest with them and tell them that they see it all too, the viewpoints, faiths, worldviews, and yet has the courage to take a risk and make a choice amongst it all.
That is what we need to teach the youth of this generation. That is what they want/need to hear. We cannot cower in fear of the pluralism of this world, of those who think and live differently from us. We cannot try to hide it from youth or ourselves, we need to lead by example and have the honesty to admit the reality of pluralism and have the strength of will and character to take a risk in making a choice one way or the other (all the while acknowledging the risk involved in making that choice instead of blindly and dishonestly suggesting that we have the answer without a doubt).
Fundamentalists do themselves a bit of disservice when they participate in such internet discussions and come across as arrogant, condescending, sarcastic and demeaning. Not at all like Jesus. They could get away with it in their own circles, but the internet exposes them publicly.
My son's roommate's parents and I were discussing the environment of Christian colleges vs. public colleges as we were moving our sons into their dorm. I noted that often kids that get funnelled by their parents into the Christian schools have been sheltered and rather sat on their whole lives, told what to think rather than taught how to think. Which explains why so many of these kids go a bit off the deep end with their new and untested freedom. According to my son, the most conservative schools have the most "wild party" reputations.
The internet makes it a lot harder to keep people in a ghetto. I think that's what the McDowells of this world are really worried about. People are more likely to find the holes in what they say, and a jolly good thing too. Surely healthy religion can cope with meeting atheists, heretics, and all the rest of us undesirables!
This reminds me of the challenge Daniel Dennet put forth that there
should be religious education in every school to teach students about
all of the religions - their beliefs, their traditions, their customs,
etc etc. He puts forth that the result might very well be the demise of
religion, but also adds that any church (or other religious community)
that survives such a process will do so because they are doing something
right - because they will transcend religion as a list of ideas, or as an excuse to stop thinking, and
move on towards faith being a way of living that is beneficial - an infrastructure for moral teamwork is I think one of the phrases he used.
"Rather than sticking our heads in the sand, why don't we come up with some better answers to the questions the kids are asking."amen and amen!
Lot's of great comments. I'll just add one thought. Hasn't the Gospel always flourished most and appeared most purely in the times and places where it was "on the fringes" of society? When the Gospel becomes mainstream the result always seems to be dilution of the message. Perhaps it isn't so tragic IF the internet were to push Christians back to the outside where they started from.
On a side note, I haven't found the internet to be such a place.
While I realize you were actually making quite a different argument when you wrote that "Facebook killed the church," in light of this article I think the backlash you received from many evangelicals now seems rather ironic.
The internet has allowed us (who take our faith just as seriously as anyone else) to bypass the prohibitions and doctrinal censorship imposed by organized religion - allowing us to "run into one another" and learn "whoa - you thought that too" or "whoa - you felt that way too". In the chuch circles I ran in, there's no way I would have learned about the possibility of Christ centered universal reconciliation. It's sad - Josh McDowell is regarded as a legendary hero in the"non"-denominational circles I spent years in ... I looked up to him myself. Thank God for the internet!!!
Gary Y.
Richard,
Here is a short and powerful video on this very topic:
http://youtu.be/lZ3WnRUxKPI
"A great revival is taking place outside the church walls
It cannot be stopped
like the printing press in the reformation
the internet belongs to GOD"
"Will the internet kill Christianity?"
Unfortunately not. It will take the return of Christ himself to put a final end to all religions -- all the "traditions of men" that try to separate mankind into those God loves and those He hates.
1Cor. 15:25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.
Maybe I'm the oldest commenter here. I grew up with and spent a major part of my life in a churches that preached, "God said it, I believe it, that settles it"! I'm pleased and encouraged to find websites such as this on which I see evangelical 20 and 30 somethings expressing their concerns and doubts about theology and church practice and searching for what really is important and necessary in their faith. It gives me hope for the future of Christianity that there are thinking and questioning people out there who aren't afraid to speak up. The internet is certainly helping in our search for our own pathway.
imho, God is perfectly capable of defending Himself (which may be why He struck the fella dead who tried to stop the Ark from falling onto the ground - although that may have something to do with breaking type - Christ fell when carrying the Cross to Calvary, but I digress).
Many readers here are liberal Christians, and as a liberal Christian myself, when it comes to fundies I echo Gamaliel, that "if this enterprise, this movement of theirs, is of human origin it will break up of its own accord; but if it does in fact come from God you will be unable to destroy them." Acts 5:38-39 I don't have a problem with Christian fundamentalism losing its grip on Christianity. imho, they represent Christ and even the poorly oftentimes (though not always). Perhaps God is blowing away some chaff?
oops! edit fail ;)
*imho, they represent Christ poorly oftentimes (though not always). Perhaps God is blowing away some chaff?
High fiive, Sammy. I'm also a recovering and former Southern Baptist. I saw the same stuff, was raised in a fundamentalist culture of fear of hell/damnation/getting it wrong, etc., where questions were "whisperings of the Enemy," and I determined that I would never do that to my own kids.
I struggle with getting past the anger that so much of my life was colored and damaged by it. A narcissistic church creates a lot of damage and casualties.
I appreciate your comments, Patricia. With me, it was books that saved me from drowning before I was an internet user. Now the internet reinforces the decisions that I made some years ago to search for a new way of being a Christian. And I haven't given up on books, though. My shelves are full and my budget declining and I've found that many of the books I seek are (thankfully) available at my excellent public library.
Thank you, seniorMom. I wish we lived close enough to meet for coffee and talk books! I also use my library (pardon the expression) ... religiously. We would read together as a family up until about a year ago, and my boys both love books, our library, and librarians, whom we've gotten to know rather well.
I had prayed for God to show me why church seemed so disingenuous. And little things began to emerge - our pastor preached another pastor's sermon verbatim (my husband and I may be the only ones who knew this, since the sermon at the time was about 10 years old, but we had the tape at home). I witnessed, and then received, adult bullying. My own son was bullied in SS class with 3 adults present. The life preached vs the life evident didn't add up.
So I turned to C.S. Lewis, my saving grace in college. And another name kept coming up: George MacDonald. Unspoken Sermons let me know that it really was okay to question and even dispute the "mean theologies" that I'd been told were "Biblical." But there was so much there, more than I could immediately digest in my quest-deprived heart and mind, that I had to keep searching. And when I discovered that Dr. Beck ALSO had a life changing experience through MacDonald, things began to unpack and sort out. He does have a tremendous gift for making difficult and complex subjects comprehensible to the ordinary person.
Thanks Simon and Right On. (Oops that dates me:-)
I have asked some of my friends who claim atheism as there perspective, "which god is it in which you do not believe?" The answer is usually defensive so I dropped the question. I do know of Rollins and am appreciative of his movements. I have not read Wright, know of him and am especially appreciative of this quote you offer. Can you tell me where to find it in his writings?
Now I too can call myself an atheist, a Christian one at that.
Hi Chuck - sorry about the slow reply - hope you are tracking this thread. I have too many of Wright's works for my own good and so it took me a while to track down a citation for you. I thought NTW first said something like this in the first 100 pages of The New Testament and The People of God, but I coundn't find the ref the other day. One place I did find Wright saying something similar to it is in Wright and Borg (2000) The Meaning of Jesus - in which the two scholars take turns in writing overlapping chapters on Christology. A really good read if you get the chance. It was published over here by SPCK and over there (I presume) by Harpers. The relevant material is at the beginning of Chapter 10 "The Divinity of Christ" at pp 157-158.
If you can't lay hold of a copy I'll scan it for you. S
S