“Whenever you love, you reenact Jesus’ death.  Consequently gospel stories always have suffering in them.  American Christianity has an allergic reaction to this part of the gospel.  We’d love to hear about God’s love for us, but suffering doesn’t mesh with our right to ‘the pursuit of happiness.’  So we pray to escape a gospel story, when that is the best gift the Father can give us.  When I was sitting on the plane thinking, Everything has gone wrong, that was the point when everything was going right.  That’s how love works.”  (p. 214)

That's not me . . . yet

I love books.  I love to sit and read, walk and read, and I especially love to drink good coffee and read.  However, I’M DROWNING IN BOOKS!  I’ve decided that I’m going to have only three or four going on at one time.  One bigger book to study in chunks (currently working on a chunk of the Institutes, then moving to a chunk of Waltke’s OT Theology).  One smaller book in the more “professional” realm for me – books on theology, teaching, church history, Bible, spiritual life, preaching, etc.  And then one “fun” book, a work of fiction or some such.  The idea is that I can carry the latter two around with me, and keep the bigger one in the office.  Of course, I’m not determining by book size, but by scope; it just so happens that the books of larger scope either come in a couple of volumes, or else they’re big.  I expect when I start in on Latourette’s A History of Christianity (2 vols.) I’ll carry it around.  By the by, if you don’t own both volumes, buy them.  They’re shamefully inexpensive.

Mon, Apr. 18, 2005

Albert Mohler, columnist

When Christian Smith and his fellow researchers with the National Study of Youth and Religion at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill took a close look at the religious beliefs held by American teenagers, they found that the faith held and described by most adolescents came down to something the researchers identified as “Moralistic Therapeutic Deism.”

As described by Smith and his team, Moralistic Therapeutic Deism consists of beliefs like these: 1. “A god exists who created and ordered the world and watches over human life on earth.” 2. “God wants people to be good, nice, and fair to each other, as taught in the Bible and by most world religions.” 3. “The central goal of life is to be happy and to feel good about oneself.” 4. “God does not need to be particularly involved in one’s life except when God is needed to resolve a problem.” 5. “Good people go to heaven when they die.”

That, in sum, is the creed to which much adolescent faith can be reduced. After conducting more than 3,000 interviews with American adolescents, the researchers reported that, when it came to the most crucial questions of faith and beliefs, many adolescents responded with a shrug and “whatever.”

As a matter of fact, the researchers, whose report is summarized in Soul Searching: The Religious and Spiritual Eyes of American Teenagers by Christian Smith with Melinda Lundquist Denton, found that American teenagers are incredibly inarticulate about their religious beliefs, and most are virtually unable to offer any serious theological understanding. As Smith reports, “To the extent that the teens we interviewed did manage to articulate what they understood and believed religiously, it became clear that most religious teenagers either do not really comprehend what their own religious traditions say they are supposed to believe, or they do understand it and simply do not care to believe it. Either way, it is apparent that most religiously affiliated U.S. teens are not particularly interested in espousing and upholding the beliefs of their faith traditions, or that their communities of faith are failing in attempts to educate their youth, or both.”

As the researchers explained, “For most teens, nobody has to do anything in life, including anything to do with religion. ‘Whatever’ is just fine, if that’s what a person wants.”

The casual “whatever” that marks so much of the American moral and theological landscapes–adolescent and otherwise–is a substitute for serious and responsible thinking. More importantly, it is a verbal cover for an embrace of relativism. Accordingly, “most religious teenager’s opinions and views–one can hardly call them worldviews–are vague, limited, and often quite at variance with the actual teachings of their own religion.”

The kind of responses found among many teenagers indicates a vast emptiness at the heart of their understanding. When a teenager says, “I believe there is a God and stuff,” this hardly represents a profound theological commitment.

Amazingly, teenagers are not inarticulate in general. As the researchers found, “Many teenagers know abundant details about the lives of favorite musicians and television stars or about what it takes to get into a good college, but most are not very clear on who Moses and Jesus were.” The obvious conclusion: “This suggests that a strong, visible, salient, or intentional faith is not operating in the foreground of most teenager’s lives.”

One other aspect of this study deserves attention at this point. The researchers, who conducted thousands of hours of interviews with a carefully identified spectrum of teenagers, discovered that for many of these teens, the interview itself was the first time they had ever discussed a theological question with an adult. What does this say about our churches? What does this say about this generation of parents?

In the end, this study indicates that American teenagers are heavily influenced by the ideology of individualism that has so profoundly shaped the larger culture. This bleeds over into a reflexive non-judgmentalism and a reluctance to suggest that anyone might actually be wrong in matters of faith and belief. Yet, these teenagers are unable to live with a full-blown relativism.

The researchers note that many responses fall along very moralistic lines–but they reserve their most non-judgmental attitudes for matters of theological conviction and belief. Some go so far as to suggest that there are no “right” answers in matters of doctrine and theological conviction.

The “Moralistic Therapeutic Deism” that these researchers identify as the most fundamental faith posture and belief system of American teenagers appears, in a larger sense, to reflect the culture as a whole. Clearly, this generalized conception of a belief system is what appears to characterize the beliefs of vast millions of Americans, both young and old.

This is an important missiological observation–a point of analysis that goes far beyond sociology. As Christian Smith and Melinda Lundquist Denton explained, Moralistic Therapeutic Deism “is about inculcating a moralistic approach to life. It teaches that central to living a good and happy life is being a good, moral person. That means being nice, kind, pleasant, respectful, responsible, at work on self-improvement, taking care of one’s health, and doing one’s best to be successful.” In a very real sense, that appears to be true of the faith commitment, insofar as this can be described as a faith commitment, held by a large percentage of Americans. These individuals, whatever their age, believe that religion should be centered in being “nice”–a posture that many believe is directly violated by assertions of strong theological conviction.

Moralistic Therapeutic Deism is also “about providing therapeutic benefits to its adherents.” As the researchers explained, “This is not a religion of repentance from sin, of keeping the Sabbath, of living as a servant of sovereign divinity, of steadfastly saying one’s prayers, of faithfully observing high holy days, of building character through suffering, of basking in God’s love and grace, of spending oneself in gratitude and love for the cause of social justice, et cetera. Rather, what appears to be the actual dominant religion among U.S. teenagers is centrally about feeling good, happy, secure, at peace. It is about attaining subjective well-being, being able to resolve problems, and getting along amiably with other people.”

In addition, Moralistic Therapeutic Deism presents a unique understanding of God. As Smith explains, this amorphous faith “is about belief in a particular kind of God: one who exists, created the world, and defines our general moral order, but not one who is particularly personally involved in one’s affairs–especially affairs in which one would prefer not to have God involved. Most of the time, the God of this faith keeps a safe distance.”

Smith and his colleagues recognize that the deity behind Moralistic Therapeutic Deism is very much like the deistic God of the 18th-century philosophers. This is not the God who thunders from the mountain, nor a God who will serve as judge. This undemanding deity is more interested in solving our problems and in making people happy. “In short, God is something like a combination Divine Butler and Cosmic Therapist: he is always on call, takes care of any problems that arise, professionally helps his people to feel better about themselves, and does not become too personally involved in the process.”

Obviously, Moralistic Therapeutic Deism is not an organized faith. This belief system has no denominational headquarters and no mailing address. Nevertheless, it has millions and millions of devotees across the United States and other advanced cultures, where subtle cultural shifts have produced a context in which belief in such an undemanding deity makes sense. Furthermore, this deity does not challenge the most basic self-centered assumptions of our postmodern age. Particularly when it comes to so-called “lifestyle” issues, this God is exceedingly tolerant and this religion is radically undemanding.

As sociologists, Smith and his team suggest that this Moralistic Therapeutic Deism may now constitute something like a dominant civil religion that constitutes the belief system for the culture at large. Thus, this basic conception may be analogous to what other researchers have identified as “lived religion” as experienced by the mainstream culture.

Moving to even deeper issues, these researches claim that Moralistic Therapeutic Deism is “colonizing” Christianity itself, as this new civil religion seduces converts who never have to leave their congregations and Christian identification as they embrace this new faith and all of its undemanding dimensions.

Consider this remarkable assessment: “Other more accomplished scholars in these areas will have to examine and evaluate these possibilities in greater depth. But we can say here that we have come with some confidence to believe that a significant part of Christianity in the United States is actually [only] tenuously Christian in any sense that is seriously connected to the actual historical Christian tradition, but is rather substantially morphed into Christianity’s misbegotten step-cousin, Christian Moralistic Therapeutic Deism.”

They argue that this distortion of Christianity has taken root not only in the minds of individuals, but also “within the structures of at least some Christian organizations and institutions.”

How can you tell? “The language, and therefore experience, of Trinity, holiness, sin, grace, justification, sanctification, church, . . . and heaven and hell appear, among most Christian teenagers in the United States at the very least, to be supplanted by the language of happiness, niceness, and an earned heavenly reward.”

Does this mean that America is becoming more secularized? Not necessarily. These researchers assert that Christianity is either degenerating into a pathetic version of itself or, more significantly, Christianity is actively being colonized and displaced by a quite different religious faith.

This radical transformation of Christian theology and Christian belief replaces the sovereignty of God with the sovereignty of the self. In this therapeutic age, human problems are reduced to pathologies in need of a treatment plan. Sin is simply excluded from the picture, and doctrines as central as the wrath and justice of God are discarded as out of step with the times and unhelpful to the project of self-actualization.

All this means is that teenagers have been listening carefully. They have been observing their parents in the larger culture with diligence and insight. They understand just how little their parents really believe and just how much many of their churches and Christian institutions have accommodated themselves to the dominant culture. They sense the degree to which theological conviction has been sacrificed on the altar of individualism and a relativistic understanding of truth. They have learned from their elders that self-improvement is the one great moral imperative to which all are accountable, and they have observed the fact that the highest aspiration of those who shape this culture is to find happiness, security, and meaning in life.

This research project demands the attention of every thinking Christian. Those who are prone to dismiss sociological analysis as irrelevant will miss the point. We must now look at the United States of America as missiologists once viewed nations that had never heard the gospel. Indeed, our missiological challenge may be even greater than the confrontation with paganism, for we face a succession of generations who have transformed Christianity into something that bears no resemblance to the faith revealed in the Bible. The faith “once delivered to the saints” is no longer even known, not only by American teenagers, but by most of their parents. Millions of Americans believe they are Christians, simply because they have some historic tie to a Christian denomination or identity.

We now face the challenge of evangelizing a nation that largely considers itself Christian, overwhelmingly believes in some deity, considers itself fervently religious, but has virtually no connection to historic Christianity. Christian Smith and his colleagues have performed an enormous service for the church of the Lord Jesus Christ in identifying Moralistic Therapeutic Deism as the dominant religion of this American age. Our responsibility is to prepare the church to respond to this new religion, understanding that it represents the greatest competitor to biblical Christianity. More urgently, this study should warn us all that our failure to teach this generation of teenagers the realities and convictions of biblical Christianity will mean that their children will know even less and will be even more readily seduced by this new form of paganism. This study offers irrefutable evidence of the challenge we now face. As the motto reminds us, “Knowledge is power.”

“And yet – while men’s hearts are failing them for fear, and for looking after those things that are coming – Now – Christian – it is your time to ‘look up, lift up your head.’ (Luke, xxi. 26-28.) The indescribably solemnity of this day has no fear for you – It is your day of unshaken and joyous confidence. Those secret sins which are set before your God ‘in the light of his countenance’ (Ps. xc.8) are screened from the claims of his justice. . . for he that will sit upon the throne is no other than he that hung upon the cross – and will not the sunshine of the cross sweep away the terror of the throne?”

-Charles Bridges, Ecclesiastes, 1860. Repub. Banner of Truth, 1981. p. 313-314.

“‘The gospel teaches us that while believers are not rewarded on account of their works, they are rewarded acording to their works.’ For ‘while our works are naught as a ground of merit for justification, they are all-important as evidences that we are justified.’”

-Geoffrey B. Wilson quoting R.L. Dabney’s ‘The Moral Effects of a Free Justification’” in Discussions, Vol. I, pp. 86, 69. Cited in 2 Corinthians, (Banner of Truth) p. 65.

“…as evil deeds are punished by God, so also good deeds are rewarded, but for a different reason. Evil deeds are given the punishment they deserve, but in rewarding good deeds God does not have regard to their merit or worth. No work of ours is so full and complete in all its parts as to deserve God’s approval . . . thus the only remedy is that God, of His unmerited kindness, should accept us and justify us by not imputing our sins. Having thus received us into His favor, He graciously accepts our works also, and it is upon this undeserved acceptance that the reward depends. There is no inconsistency in saying that He rewards good works provided we understand that that implies no denial of the fact that it is by free grace that we obtain eternal life. . . . For to know the fear of the Lord[sic] is to share the knowledge that each of us will one day have to give an account of all his actions before the judgment-seat of Christ and if a man seriously considers that, he cannot but be moved by fear and shake off all his carelessness. ”

-John Calvin, Commentary on II Corinthians 5.9-11

“The punishment which men are to receive will be what they have earned, and therefore what is in justice due to them. THe reward of the righteous, although a matter of grace and not of justice, yet being, agreeably to the tenor of the covenant of grace, according to their works, it is of the nature of a reward. . . . Our acts are treasures laid up for the future, whether treasures of wrath, or treasures in heaven.

-Hodge in his commentary on II Corinthians, 5.9-10

A litmus test, scientifically, is a test to determine the pH of a substance.  It is frequently referenced in politics because of the simplicity of the test: an acid will turn litmus paper red, an alkaline will turn it blue, and something in the neutral or slight range will make it purple.

The president has now declared that he will not apply a “litmus test” to a Supreme Court nominee;

“I will say the same thing that every president has said since this issue came up, which is, I don’t have litmus tests around any of these issues,” -President Obama, responding to reporters when asked if he could nominate someone who did not support abortion rights.

One would think that this means he’s not going to test the issue to see if the nominee feels one way or another, he is will look at other criteria instead.  Okay, fair enough.

He then goes on to say that ” . . . I want somebody who will be interpreting our Constitution in a way that takes into account individual rights. And that includes women’s rights.”

Huh?  Isn’t that the litmus test right there?  He’s not going to pick a nominee based on such and such an issue, just as long as they are on the right side of the issue?

I thought this guy was supposed to be smart.

Here it is.