Helping The Next Generation Become Biblical

Working with students on a large secular campus, I often get into discussions about the Bible - what is it, and why it matters to us. What's interesting is that depending on what generation you come from may seriously impact what you think the Bible is.

The Barna Group is well-known for its research into areas related to Christianity, and not long ago they published their findings on the issue of generational views about the Bible. For their research purposes, here is how they label the generations:

• Mosaics: current 18-25 year olds
• Busters: current 26-44 year olds
• Boomers: current 45-63 year olds
• Elders: current 64+ year olds

Here are some interesting points the research shows:

• While most Americans of all ages identify the Bible as sacred, the drop-off among the youngest adults is striking: 9 out of 10 Boomers and Elders described the Bible as sacred, which compares to 8 out of 10 Busters (81%) and just 2 out of 3 Mosaics (67%).

• Young adults are significantly less likely than older adults to strongly agree that the Bible is totally accurate in all of the principles it teaches. Just 30% of Mosaics and 39% of Busters firmly embraced this view, compared with 46% of Boomers and 58% of Elders.

• Among Mosaics, a majority (56%) believes the Bible teaches the same spiritual truths as other sacred texts, which compares with 4 out of 10 Busters and Boomers, and one-third of Elders.

• Another generational difference is that young adults are more likely to express skepticism about the original manuscripts of the Bible than is true of older adults.

• While many young adults are active users of the Bible, the pattern shows a clear generational drop-off – the younger the person, the less likely then are to read the Bible. In particular, Busters and Mosaics are less likely than average to have spent time alone in the last week praying and reading the Bible for at least 15 minutes. Interestingly, none of the four generations were particularly likely to say they aspired to read the Bible more as a means of improving their spiritual lives.

David Kinnaman, who directed the analysis of the research, explained that the “central theme of young people’s approach to the Bible is skepticism. They question the Bible’s history as well as its relevance to their lives, leading many young people to reject the Bible as containing everything one needs to live a meaningful life." 

So young adults view the Bible with skepticism, ranging on everything from its origins to its veracity to its applicability.

However, there is a bright side.  One finding of the Barna Group was this:  "Despite the generational decline in many Bible metrics, one departure from the typical pattern is the fact that younger adults, especially Mosaics (19%), express a slightly above-average interest in gaining additional Bible knowledge. This compares with 12% of Boomers and 9% of Elders. "

Now, how does that last piece square with the fact that young adults do not read the Bible nearly as much as other generations?  How can they read it less but express the most interest in gaining greater Bible knowledge?  I don't really know for sure, but one thing I think it tells me is that they are willing to learn (eager, even), but don't find the value in doing a lot of personal Bible reading and study.

This means that our opportunity as teachers is greater than it has been in a long time.  We have an open window to play a significant role in their lives as guides and coaches to help them discover the amazing truths found in Scripture.  

Here's what the Barna Group said in conclusion:  "The president of the Barna Group pointed out that since many young people want to learn about the Bible it should be an opportunity for Christian leaders.  Perhaps young people want to participate more in the process of learning, not simply attend Bible lectures or be trained in classrooms. Mosaics and Busters have come to expect experiences that appear unscripted and interactive, that allow them to be open and honest with their questions, that are technologically stimulating, that are done alongside peers and within trusted relationships, and that give them the chance to be creative and visual. Their expectations may or may not be entirely healthy, but without considering these issues, the Bible will continue to lose hold on the next generation."

Personally, I find this to be exciting.  I have experienced a greater openness to the Bible from students over the last few years.  I think it's an opportunity for churches to engage young people in creative ways.  Clearly there is a need to address important issues regarding the origin and trustworthiness and applicability of the Bible.  I think that the Church needs to do a better job helping young people walk through these issues and not simply present a collection of pat answers that represent all the things that are driving young people away from the Church in the first place.

What is Faith? - Reasons to Believe

"Blind faith, no matter how passionately expressed, will not suffice. Science for its part will test relentlessly every assumption about the human condition." - E.O. Wilson

"The meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry." - Richard Dawkins

"Dawkins considers that all faith is blind faith, and that Christian and Muslim children are brought up to believe unquestioningly. Not even the dim-witted clerics who knocked me about at grammar school thought that." - Terry Eagleton



Faith is a word that used to carry a great deal of significance and honor. To have faith was to have trust in something or someone, and it was a noble quality to have. In many circles today, however, faith is a pejorative term. Faith is seen as a weakness, something that exists only because of ignorance. If we lack knowledge, faith is what makes up for that lack of knowledge.

Imagine a spectrum, with knowledge and faith on opposite ends. The more knowledge we have, the less faith we need. Conversely, the more we lack knowledge, the more faith we need to have.

This is the contemporary picture of faith - as our knowledge gaps fill in, faith recedes. So powerful is this image that many Christians have bought into it as well. This is tragic, as it completely goes against the Biblical idea of faith.

Consider the case of Thomas - dubbed mockingly as "Doubting Thomas". Here is the story, taken from John 20:24-29:

John 20:24-29 - "Now Thomas, one of the Twelve, called the Twin, was not with them when Jesus came. So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord.” But he said to them, “Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails, and place my finger into the mark of the nails, and place my hand into his side, I will never believe.” Eight days later, his disciples were inside again, and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you.” Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe.” Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

Thomas was one of the twelve disciples, and he walked with Jesus for three and a half years. He experienced Jesus' miracles. He saw Him heal the lame, give sight to the blind, cast out demons, saw Jesus calm the storm and feed the 5,000. He heard Jesus teach about the kingdom of God and declare that if Jesus was killed, that He would rise again in in three days. He was there for all of that.

And then came the arrest and trial of Jesus, followed by the horrible crucifixion. For any follower of Jesus at that time, it had to be just awful, horrific. They all had to be seriously questioning whether Jesus really was who they thought He was. After all, what kind of Messiah gets captured and crucified?

But then came the reports. First from the women. Jesus had risen from the dead! And those reports were followed by the testimony of Peter and some others. The tomb really was empty, they said.

But in the midst of all this, what does Thomas say?

Thomas says something here that I think many of us have said at one time or another. Picture this scenario. You get a phone call from a friend who tells you that they had the most amazing thing just happen to them. And as they tell the story, it gets more and more fantastic. Maybe they've met a celebrity or won a new car as a prize or whatever. But as the story goes on, it begins to sound like just an incredible thing. And when they're done, you're thinking to yourself, sounds great, but I'll believe it when I see it.

I'll believe it when I see it. It's a phrase we use all the time, and it's not new. Thomas said the same thing when he was told about Jesus rising from the dead. He said, “Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails, and place my finger into the mark of the nails, and place my hand into his side, I will never believe.”

Unless I can see the marks of his death - the holes in his hands and side, and I'm able to actually touch Jesus, then I will never believe this crazy story you guys are telling me.

At this point, we need to ask a question: Did Thomas lack faith? I think the easy answer is, yes, he did. He did not believe (Jesus said, "do not disbelieve"), and he said he wouldn't believe unless he had credible evidence that Jesus actually rose from the dead.

But let's see what faith really is though.

Hebrews 11:1 says, "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." Let's look at some of these words to unpack this a little bit.

The word "faith" is the Greek word pistis. It is used proper some 227 times in the New Testament. It means, "a conviction of the truth of something; belief with the predominant idea of trust." So pistis is a trust in the truth of the thing in which one has faith.

The word "assurance" is the Greek word hupostasis, and it means, "a foundational quality; a firm and resolute confidence."

The word "conviction" is the Greek word elegchos, and it means, "proved; that by which a thing is proved or tested."

Now here the thing in which we have this resolute confidence is something we cannot see. Faith is the resolute confidence in something that cannot be observed directly, but which nonetheless believable because it has been tested and found to be worthy of our trust.

In the New Testament, there are many stories of people coming up to Jesus and He lauds them for their faith. Why? They maybe have not seen Jesus do any miracles themselves, but they have heard many stories from their friends, and they come to the point where they trust in who Jesus is and what He is capable of. So Jesus says, "Your faith has made you well."

As Christians, we understand faith this way. We cannot observe God directly, but we see the effects of His work in the world and in our lives. And so we trust in Him, we have faith that He is real and that He desires for us to know Him.

Many in the world today see faith as something to ridicule, that faith means believing in something for which there is no evidence whatsoever. The Biblical understanding of faith is just the opposite - it is trusting, having confidence, in that for which we have good reason to believe.

For Thomas, his faith was dependent on perhaps a little more evidence than it was for Peter. Peter seemed ready to believe much more quickly than Thomas did. It wasn't just that Thomas didn't have faith. Remember, faith is confidence in that for which we have good reason to believe. But what a "good reason" is for one person might not be "good reason" for another person.

We look at the stars and the vastness of space and the grandeur and immensity of it all, and maybe for you and me that is enough of a good reason for us to believe that God is real. But for someone else, the vastness of space and the grandeur and the immensity of it all simply tells them that we are small and insignificant specks in the universe, and for them, the required amount of evidence for them to believe is greater than it might be for you and me. Before we speak too critically of such people that need more evidence, let's look at how Jesus responded to Thomas.

Jesus said to him, “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe.”

So yes, Thomas didn't believe. But it wasn't that Thomas lacked the capacity to have faith; nor did he lack the willingness to believe. He just didn't have a good enough reason to believe.

Now was Jesus critical of Thomas here? No. If Jesus wanted to criticize Thomas for his unbelief, he might have phrased it very differently. He wasn't afraid to say to His disciples, "Get behind me Satan!" or "Oh you of little faith!" He doesn't say any of that here. He shows Thomas His hands and side, and invites Thomas to touch them. In other words, He gives Thomas exactly what Thomas needs to believe. And Thomas responds with, "My Lord and my God!"

God loves us, and He wants us to have faith in Him. He realizes that what each of us needs is different from person to person. And He is willing to give us each what we need to believe. And then at THAT point it becomes a question of whether or not we're going to believe. It becomes a matter of willingness and desire.

Now, the end of this scene is interesting. Jesus then says to the disciples, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

So this is not a negative statement about Thomas. If He was down on Thomas, again, He would have said something critical, and He might not have given Thomas what he needed. So he affirmed Thomas' need for more evidence by actually showing him more evidence. But here He goes beyond that. It's one thing, Thomas, that you believe because you've seen Me. It's one thing that you need that much evidence, but the reality is that most people will not get the chance to see My hands and My side, and those people who believe without that degree of evidence will be blessed for their faith.

You and I will not see or touch Jesus' wounds. We cannot believe on the basis of that kind of physical evidence. We have to believe apart from that kind of evidence.

So what are some reasons why we might believe in Jesus? I'll offer three.

First, we believe due to the general trustworthiness and reliability of the Bible. Here is a little article on that subject: http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/auth-bib.html.

Second, we believe due to our own personal experiences. Maybe you've seen answers to specific prayers. Maybe you've seen God provide for you in miraculous ways. Maybe you've seen God heal you from a physical or emotional ailment.

Third, we believe due to the testimony of others. When people we know well and trust tell us stories of God's faithfulness and protection and provision and answered prayer, we have good reason to believe them. Those stories encourage us in our faith.

Here's the long story short: faith is not believing because we have no reason. Faith is believing precisely because we have good reason. And everyone, every day, exercises faith. Getting on an airplane, sitting in a chair, driving in a car - we do all these things because we think we have good reason for doing so. Trusting in Jesus is a faith that is well-grounded in history; we have good reasons for it. Faith in Him is good and honorable and right.

The Problem With Bible References

I had a very interesting discussion this past week with some of my students when we were driving home from our mission trip to Atlanta.  We were listening to a pastor deliver a message and he referred to a few Bible passages using chapter and verse ("Please note what the Bible says in Ephesians 3:15...")  As I listened, I thought it would be a good opportunity to share some thoughts, which I am now happy to put in written form.

Bible references - the chapter and verse numbers - are both good and bad.  They are good because they serve the purpose of making references easy.  If I'm quoting from Isaiah, and I don't have a chapter and verse to point people to, it makes such referencing very unwieldy.  Without references, it's almost impossible to find a particular sentence in a book as large as Isaiah.  So from that standpoint, chapters and verses are very helpful in so many ways.

But there are significant problems with the references.  First, they are not divinely inspired.  They are late additions to our texts.  As such, they often fall in strange places.  A good little article on this can be found here:  http://www.gotquestions.org/divided-Bible-chapters-verses.html

This blog (http://dedicatedlion.blogspot.com/2009/07/who-divided-bible-into-chapters.html) offers these insights:

"New Testament scholar A. T. Robertson advised, “The first step in interpretation is to ignore the modern chapters and verses” (Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, p. 101; cited in Daniel Fuller, The Unity of the Bible, p. 102). Some of the chapter breaks are in fact very poorly placed. Take, for example, the very first one in the Bible, where Genesis begins its second chapter. Genesis 2:1 is continuing the story of Genesis 1, summarizing it by saying “Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them,” and telling what God did on the seventh day. It would be nice to have day 7 in the same chapter with days 1-6, especially since it only takes three more verses to round off the sequence of thought. Furthermore, Genesis 1 consistently calls the creator Elohim, and this name (the ordinary Hebrew word for god, just as deus is the Latin word, gott is the German, and dios is the Spanish) continues to be used for three more verses. Where should the chapter break be? The second chapter of Genesis should start at 2:4, where the formula “these are the generations” (an important structural marker through the remainder of the book) occurs, where the 7-day sequence is done with, where the narrator flashes back to the creation of humanity, and where the word Elohim is set aside and God begins to be referred to as the LORD God. Notice that criticizing the chapter break is not criticizing the word of God; it is pointing out a lapse in judgment on the part of Stephen Langton (who established the first chapter-verse system in the 13th century), whose work was very recent– not even a thousand years ago!– compared to the antiquity of Genesis."

The problem is that these chapter breaks can seriously influence our reading of Scripture.  They can lead us to believe that new thoughts are being offered, when in reality they are simply continuations of previous thoughts.  Or vice-versa.  As Robertson said above, ignore them when doing serious study.

Second, and more problematic, the chapter and verse numbers give us freedom to pull verses out in isolation.  I cannot tell you the number of times I've heard people say, "Here's a great scripture...." and then give a single verse.  Well, I appreciate the sentiment, but a singular sentence pulled out of its context is not a "scripture".  It is a sentence in the midst of a larger context that exists in a particular book in a canon of scripture, to be more precise.  This passage isolation can be very dangerous to our understanding of the text.  Let me use a simple example.

The most well-known verse in the Bible is John 3:16 - "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life."  Now, that verse, taken in isolation, appears to be saying something particular about the nature of God's love.  We read that and we think that the "so" is quantitative.  Jesus here seems to be saying that God loves the world so much that He gave His Son for us.  And, while that seems to be consistent with the thrust of Scripture (His love is indeed vast!), that is NOT what is being said here.  

If you look at the context, you'll see that Jesus is having a conversation with Nicodemus, a Pharisee.  Jesus is teaching him what it means to be born again, and He references a story in the Old Testament (of course, they wouldn't have called it that back then), from Numbers 21 (see? a reference can be helpful!).  It is the story of Israel's rebellion (they complained against God), God's judgment (poisonous snakes came and bit them), their repentance (they acknowledged their sin and asked Moses to intercede for them), and God's gracious provision for their salvation (Moses made a bronze serpent, attached it to a pole, and if anyone looked upon it in faith, they were saved).  

After referencing that story, Jesus then said, "For God so loved the world...."  The "so" here is not "so much"; rather, it is "in the same manner".  The "so" is a comparative statement, not a quantitative one.  

When we read Bible verses in isolation, we usually miss the point.  We usually misread the text.  When Paul wrote Romans, he wrote a long letter to the church in Rome.  He did not write a series of individual verses.  The letter flows together as a cohesive case, and pulling individual verses out in isolation from the rest of the passage is just asking for interpretive trouble.  

It is difficult to read the Scriptures apart from chapters and verses.  We are so used to them, and they are so helpful to point us to specific places in the Bible.  But they carry with them significant dangers.  It is important that we are aware of these dangers as we seek to understand what the authors are trying to communicate.

Knowing God Subjectively

I know my little blog doesn't exactly get national readership, but usually more than two people read what I post.  And for the purpose of the topic I'm about to address, that's sufficient.

Consider two readers - Bob and Jane - as they read and understand this post.  What is it that they are reading?  They are reading words that I have written.  That may sound absurdly and pointlessly true, but think about the implications of that for a moment.  I - not Bob or Jane - have written these words.  That is an objectively true statement.  Bob or Jane or Nobel Prize-winning scientist David Wineland could examine this and, with the right amount of knowledge, determine its truth.

In other words, there is objective reality that exists - in this case, the words stored on a computer somewhere and observed on a computer screen - to which Bob and Jane, my faithful readers, are witnesses.  Objective reality....well, it is real.  There are things that are true, and remain true, whether we observe them or not, or believe in them or not.

I discovered a neat little proof for this here (http://www.geek-central.gen.nz/peeves/objective_reality.html), and after giving the author (Lawrence D'Oliveiro) proper credit, I will now post his argument:


This proof is about giving a definite answer to the following question Q:

Q: Is there such a thing as objective reality?

Objective realists would say that the answer A to question Q is:

A1: Yes.

while the cultural relativists would say that the answer is:

A2: No.

So let us ask the meta-question Q':

Q': Is there an answer to question Q?

To which both objective realists and cultural relativists would agree that the answer A' is definitely:

A': Yes.

All parties must be united in accepting that this answer is objectively true, not a matter of someone's individual or cultural belief, for if they did not, then there would be no basis for their dispute. Therefore answer A' is itself an example of objective reality—something that remains true whether anybody believes in it or not. Therefore the answer to question Q is A1 (yes)—there is such a thing as objective reality.
That, in a nutshell, is the basis of the proof of objective reality. But some may argue that the above conclusion is too pat. What if there isn’t a definite answer to meta-question Q'? So now we have a dispute over the answer to meta-meta-question Q'':

Q'': Is there an answer to question Q'?

to which the objective realists say the answer is “yes”, while the meta-cultural-relativists say the answer is “no”. However, all have to be in agreement that the answer to meta-meta-meta-question Q''':

Q''': Is there an answer to question Q''?

is

A''': Yes.

which itself becomes an example of something objectively true, from which the answer to the original question Q is again A1 (yes).

It is clear that the above sequence can be extended ad infinitum: the objective realists always answer “yes” to every question, while the metaⁿ-cultural relativists (n = 0, 1, 2 ...) answer “no” to the first 2n+1 questions, and agree with the objective realists thereafter.

Now, we know there has to be objective reality that exists, but the question becomes, How do each of us interact with that objective reality?  And the answer is:  subjectively.  In other words, while objective reality exists, each of us interacts with that objective reality differently, and each of us experiences that objective reality differently.  So we have a subjective experience of objective reality.

Let us go back to my faithful readers, Bob and Jane.  Each of them reads these words in this post and both see the same exact text put down in the same exact order and fashion.  But each of them experiences them differently.  Let's say Bob is a philosophical thinker who has been wrestling with various philosophical issues recently.  He might read what is here and the words hit him in a particular way.  Immediately, his brain goes into critical thinking mode, and he seeks ways to counter what I've written.  And if he disagrees strongly, his emotional response might be one of anger, feeling like I've led my other faithful readers astray.

But Jane is coming into this from a very different place.  She's never thought about these things before, but does have an intuitive sense that what I'm arguing is true.  Maybe she feels like she can relate to my words and as she reads, she's nodding, thinking, yes, that makes sense.  And she begins to see how her experience of the world changes, depending on what she herself brings into that experience.

So Bob and Jane, reading the same objectively real text, experience it very differently.  They each have subjective experiences of an objective reality.

What does all this have to do with God?  Well, God, if He exists at all, exists in an objectively true fashion.  Maybe some might dispute that, on the basis of the fact that we can't (at least in our finite, mortal minds) fully comprehend God, so we all have slightly different views on what God is like.  Consider, for example, a piece of art that is meant to be interpreted differently by each observer.  God might be like that.  But then if that's how God is, that's how God is!  It would be objectively true that God's nature is such that He is to be understood and experienced differently by different people.

So if God exists at all, God exists in an objectively true fashion.  But we all experience Him differently.  Moses' experience of God might have been very different from St. Francis of Assisi's.  Yours might be very different from mine.

Now, a logical question to ask at this point is this:  if we all experience God subjectively, does that mean that all our subjective experiences of God are true and trustworthy?  The answer to that is no.  Two of us could see an accident in a busy intersection, and file a report for the police.  Something objectively true happened in that intersection, and we both experience it differently.  But (a) our different experiences do not mean that there is no objective reality, and (b) it's entirely possible that one of us is actually wrong about our experience.  If I explain that the blue car, driven by the man with the long hair, ran the red light and smashed into the red car, it's possible that that's exactly what happened, but it's also possible that I got it wrong.  Maybe it wasn't a man with long hair; maybe it was a woman.  Maybe the blue car didn't run a red light; I just thought it did.  In other words, the fact that we subjectively experience objective reality does not mean that every subjective claim of that objective reality is true or accurate.

So don't think that what I'm arguing is that any religious claim or spiritual experience is just as good as another.  That's not the case at all.  If I have a particular spiritual experience and walk away believing that God is XYZ, it could be the case that all I'm really experiencing is a bad burrito.

Why am I bringing all this up?  For my Christian friends, I would use this time as a caution against a sense that God can be experienced only a certain way.  Christians have different experiences of God - some experience Him in nature, others in the solitude of Scriptural study, others in difficult and painful times, others in more emotional settings.  There is no one way that we experience God, and we would be wise to open ourselves up a little more to different ways God can speak to us and work in our lives.

To my non-Christian friends, I would use this as a caution against a religious free-for-all, because, as I said a moment ago, the fact that subjective experience of objective reality exists does not mean that all subjective experiences reflect the truth.  Just because someone finds a spiritual experience in a rainbow doesn't mean that the rainbow is God.  Our task is to seek to discover the objectively real God, understanding that when we find Him, we will experience Him differently.

Fortunately, God Himself has given us insight as to how we can discover Him.  Jesus said in John 17:3, "Now this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent."  Eternal life is defined as a relationship with God.  Knowing God is different than knowing about God.  We know God through Jesus Christ, but our experience of God can change from day to day, from person to person.

I would encourage each of us to seek the objectively real God and enjoy the unique ways each of us can experience Him!