Higher Education...Good or Bad?

[This Vale Of Tears]

TVoT,

I originally asked what you think daily university life for students is like after you posted, "I don't expect you to find anything disagreeable about college because the professors are left wing like you. Thinking that Christians who don't want to be indoctrinated in leftist ideology are "anti-intellectual" (your words) is at worst intellectually dishonest, ignorant at best."

Like aspen, I went to a Christian university. I love how you and Aspen are pretending like we're not discussing highly Leftist universities such as Berkley, Davis, or Harvard. Are you about to make the idiotic claim that because I didn't go to one of these Left wing universities I can't possibly know what's taught there? Because it sounds like you are. Please do that! Please, please please.....

 

[River Jordan]

You painted a pretty specific picture of university life, so I was wondering what that was based on (since it wasn't anything like what I experienced first-hand). So if you've never been to a public non-Christian university, what exactly was your description based on?

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

You actually did it. You actually made the obscenely stupid claim that I can't know what's being taught at Leftist universities unless I attend it. Because what goes on at these universities I'm sure is like the inner circles of Masonic fraternity and there's no way for an "outsider" to know what goes on. Yeah, these college types are tight lipped about what they're taught and mum's the word. These teachers never publish their syllabus or write papers available to the public and of course there are no tape recordings of college professors ranting against Christians and conservatives. Yeah, I couldn't possibly understand so I just better zip my mouth because I have no clue what goes on at these colleges.

I never assume that people I deal with are actually intelligent, especially the pseudo intellectuals that plague the internet. So let me ask you, do you really believe this? It wouldn't surprise me to find there are people out there who are truly this stupid, I just want to know if I'm conversing with one of them now.

 

[aspen]

i got my first graduate degree at the university of oregon. it is right up there with berkely for having a liberal reputation. some of the liberal ideas i encountered from several of my professors included an inclusive additude towards diversity of students. another, was a no nonsense attitude regarding evolution. they did not treat the issue as an issue at all. it is completely settled outside of fundamentalist Christian circles. therefore, there is no apolegetics or indoctrination or even education on evolutional principles because they expect that if you are in a masters of science program you should know enough about it to be literate. creationism offers nothing to the field of science so it is not considered. arguing the foundational aspects of evolution at that level of education is like arguing the basic rules of grammar in a liturature graduate program.

the conservative ideas that i ran into from professors included politics (two professors were republican - Five were democrats or at least

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

Trying to turn this into another evolution thread with the "science = evolution" argument, aspen? People who are indoctrinated don't know that they're indoctrinated, so let me spell this out to you so you fully understand how indoctrinated you are. When evolution is taught as a fact, it's indoctrination. You're actually a good example of why Christian parents should keep their kids away from Left wing universities.

 

[aspen]

liberal.

Some of the conservative ideas i learned from all the professors was their religous respect and reliance on the "literature" - all edcation builds on the thoughts and ideas that came before. that makes education inherently conservative. it takes a long time before new ideas are adopted. Another conservative idea is guarding your own research and ideas against new ideas - lots of professors did this. Also, the habit of entrenching themselves in one or two safe liberal cause in order to justify all the ways they are actually closeminded. these are all conservative patterns of behavior - they value safety over new ways of thinking
i didnt see any other liberal ideas that would threaten a conservative christian so what is your complaint, Vale?

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

My complaint is simple. Colleges should not be places of political indoctrination. And "I didn't see any liberal ideas" means nothing to me. Indoctrinated people don't know that they're indoctrinated. We've covered this already.

 

[River Jordan]

You actually did it. You actually made the obscenely stupid claim that I can't know what's being taught at Leftist universities unless I attend it. Because what goes on at these universities I'm sure is like the inner circles of Masonic fraternity and there's no way for an "outsider" to know what goes on. Yeah, these college types are tight lipped about what they're taught and mum's the word. These teachers never publish their syllabus or write papers available to the public and of course there are no tape recordings of college professors ranting against Christians and conservatives. Yeah, I couldn't possibly understand so I just better zip my mouth because I have no clue what goes on at these colleges.

I never assume that people I deal with are actually intelligent, especially the pseudo intellectuals that plague the internet. So let me ask you, do you really believe this? It wouldn't surprise me to find there are people out there who are truly this stupid, I just want to know if I'm conversing with one of them now.

Um....ok then...thanks.

 

[aspen]

if you want to study science you need to understand the role and mechanics of evolution sorry vale

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

if you want to study science you need to understand the role and mechanics of evolution sorry vale

The "science is evolution and anything that isn't evolution is religion and superstition" argument is retarded no matter how many times it's repeated. I know that evolution is a religion to you people because of how dogmatically you assert it as a fact rather than a theory. And you insist over and over that science is a dedicated spouse to evolution in spite of the fact that ID scientists make a compelling science based argument for intelligent design. It's all a religion to you, taken by faith, defended against scrutiny, and never subject to re examination. You'd be extremely embarrassed if you could step outside yourself and see how monstrously stupid your statement is. But that's what blind faith is...stupid.

 

[aspen]

i am wondering Vale (like river) what indoctrination are you thinking that liberal professors are forcing on their students? perhaps i missed it.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

i am wondering Vale (like river) what indoctrination are you thinking that liberal professors are forcing on their students? perhaps i missed it.

I'm not playing your game, pretending that there is no liberal bias on college campuses. You got your head in the sand and I'm not going down there with you. Here's for your information:

http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/library/education/liberal-bias-education-campus-classroom-college
http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/13650/
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/1/liberal-majority-on-campus-yes-were-biased/?page=all
http://video.foxnews.com/v/3497084806001/extreme-liberal-bias-caught-on-tape-in-the-college-classroom/#sp=show-clips
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/18/arts/18liberal.html?_r=0

Vaya con Dios.

 

[Wormwood]

River,

Here are some of the stats I had in mind. One of the books I was thinking of in particular, has been borrowed out. However, here is some pertinent information about church stances on doctrine and how that relates to people coming to or leaving the faith.

91% of formerly unchurched people claimed that doctrine was an important reason why they joined their church.
89% of people who transferred churches claimed that doctrine was an important reason.

Thom Rainer writes, "The formerly unchurched, however, were not just interested in the facts of doctrine; they were insistent that the churches should be uncompromising in their stand. These facts fly in the face of an increasingly pluralistic and theologically tolerant culture."

Rainer says that the sentiments of those they interviewed continued to coincide with a book written 30 years earlier entitled "Why Conservative Churches are Growing" by Dean Kelley. Reasons were that people wanted in their faith...
1) churches that believe the Bible and make no apology for their beliefs
2) distinctive code of conduct that emanates from the conviction of their beliefs
3) commit significant resources to their causes based on the teachings of Scripture
4) have missionary zeal that comes from belief that eternal salvation comes from Christ alone and eternal damnation is a reality without Christ.

Rainer also quotes Barna's Study saying, "Doctrine is important. Both our research and Barna's research indicate that it is the single most critical issue in reaching people. When will churches in America grasp t his reality?"

Then the study took another turn. After 9 out of 10 said doctrine was very important to them in choosing a church, they were asked "Why." Thom Rainer writes, "The most frequent response was their desire to know truth or absolutes."

Rainer also says, "One question we routinely asked in our interviews was, "What brought you back to church?" We received answers such as the following relating to the issue of certitude.
"The church is uncompromising on the Word."
"The pastor spoke the Word of God as truth. Didn't 'fluff-up' sermon. Called 'sin' sin in a loving way."
"You could tell that people really believed what was taught and preached."
"All the material they gave to visitors in the worship service tells you clearly that the church has convictions about what it believes."
"I have never been to a Sunday school class where the teacher was so well prepared and taught with so much authority and conviction."

He concludes the chapter on this aspect of the research with these points:

*More formerly unchurched spoke of the importance of doctrine in their decision-making process than any other factor.
*The doctrine that attracted the formerly unchurched was not just any belief system, but a theology that could best be described as conservative, evangelical, and uncompromising.
*Many indicated that their interest in doctrine was a consequence of their desire to discover absolutes in a culture where few absolutes are perceived to exist.
*Those who spoke of the importance of doctrine could discern easily where churches were strong or weak in their affimation of beliefs. The formerly unchurched were attracted to churches that had doctrinal certitude.
*The pastor was the key person to whom the formerly unchurched look for certitude of beliefs. They did not look to the pastor alone, however, but to the entire congregation.
*It appears that doctrinal conviction not only attracts the unchurched, but it may have a major role in their assimilation after they become Christians.
*Without exception, when the formerly unchurched told us of their attraction to churches with doctrinal conviction, they never described the spirit of the churches with such negative words as harsh, judgmental, or legalistic. When they described the spirit or ethics of people of the church they typically used words that could best be summarized as, "speaking the truth in love."

Now this book, "Surprising Insights from the Unchurched" focused specifically on research done with the formerly unchurched. Another book (the one I do not have at the moment) deals with growing and healthy churches. It is entitled "Breakout Churches." The research here shows the same type of statistics with churches that are healthy and growing. Believers are more likely to leave and the churches shrink if their doctrine is not classified as conservative, evangelical and uncompromising.

Here is another article of note. You can find it at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-b-bradshaw/mainline-churches-past-pr_b_4087407.html

There is no question that the very significant contributions Mainline Protestant denominations have made to the United States deserve mention in our history books. But times are changing.

Every year since the early years of our country until the mid-1960s the membership of each of these denominations and the number of their respective churches increased. Every year since about 1965 the membership of each of these denominations and the number of their respective churches have decreased. Studying official membership figures of the Mainline denominations reveals that in the early fifties the combined membership of these denominations was somewhere in the neighborhood of forty million members or active attendees. Now that number has shrunk to approximately 15 million -- a startling decline of nearly sixty percent.
At the same time, the number of evangelical, fundamentalist, and/or charismatic Protestant denominations and independent churches and the number of people they represent have increased every year -- by even greater numbers than the losses recorded by the Mainline Protestant Churches.

So again, I would say that it is not the rigid, doctrinally conservative churches that are more likely to have their children give up their faith at the secular university. Rather the more liberal or "progressive" churches are the ones in steep decline. Id say both camps are seeing their children lose faith at the secular university, but statistics show that conservative evangelicals are not losing members while the mainline denominations are losing them very rapidly.

 

[River Jordan]

Thanks for looking that up Wormwood. It's interesting to see different ways of presenting data. A lot of it seems to come down to how one defines and classifies different denominations, as well as which specific question is being asked.

Relative to this thread, we're noting that today's kids (millennials) are leaving Christianity in increasing numbers, and we're wondering what parts of Christianity is losing them. Specific to that question, there was a survey done in 2012 called The Millennial Values Survey, which in addition to other subjects, covered this question. From that page...

Younger Millennials report significant levels of movement from the religious affiliation of their childhood, mostly toward identifying as religiously unaffiliated. While only 11% of Millennials were religiously unaffiliated in childhood, one-quarter (25%) currently identify as unaffiliated, a 14-point increase. Catholics and white mainline Protestants saw the largest net losses due to Millennials’ movement away from their childhood religious affiliation.

• Today, college-age Millennials are more likely than the general population to be religiously unaffiliated. They are less likely than the general population to identify as white evangelical Protestant or white mainline Protestant.
• Millennials also hold less traditional or orthodox religious beliefs. Fewer than one-quarter (23%) believe that the Bible is the word of God and should be taken literally, word for word. About 1-in-4 (26%) believe Bible is the word of God, but that not everything in the Bible should be taken literally. Roughly 4-in-10 (37%) say that the Bible is a book written by men and is not the word of God.

Interestingly, the same survey looked at why millennials are leaving Christianity. We've covered this here before, but to recap..

The survey also offers some clues to why many Millennials are breaking away from their childhood faith, at least if they come from a Christian tradition. Younger Millennials’ feelings about Christianity are decidedly mixed. Three-quarters (76 percent) agree that present-day Christianity has “good values and principles,” and 63 percent believe that Christianity “consistently shows love for other people.” On the other hand, strong majorities also agree that modern-day Christianity is “hypocritical” (58 percent), “judgmental” (62 percent), and “anti-gay” (64 percent).

Notably, the perception that Christianity is “anti-gay”-an attribute that strong majorities of both Christian Millennials (58 percent) and religiously unaffiliated Millennials (79 percent) agree describes present-day Christianity well-may be driving some of Millennials’ estrangement from organized religion. Last fall, for example, a PRRI survey found that nearly seven-in-ten (69 percent) 18-29 year-old Millennials agree that religious groups are alienating young people by being too judgmental about gay and lesbian issues.

This is what strikes me as odd. Why would young people leave a liberal church over gay issues? Liberal churches tend to be on the accepting/tolerance side of the issue, whereas it's the conservative denominations that are taking the hard line. Add in the other factor that we've described previously (too judgmental, too anti-science) and something isn't adding up. Apparently we have millennials leaving more liberal churches over non-liberal issues? Huh? :huh:

Another survey, the PRRI poll from 2012, showed a dramatic decline among white evangelicals as they get younger.

• Seven-in-ten seniors (age 65 and older) are white Christians, such as white evangelical Protestants (30%), white mainline Protestants (20%), and white Catholics (19%).
• Three-in-ten Millennials (age 18 to 29) are white Christians, such as white mainline Protestants (12%), white evangelical Protestants (9%), or white Catholics (8%). Nearly one-third (32%) of Millennials report that they are religiously unaffiliated.

So from the older generation to millennials, white evangelicals have lost 21%, whereas mainline Protestants have lost 8% and Catholics 11%. Interestingly though, the overall number of white evangelicals remains steady. So what seems to be happening is conservative Christianity is gaining converts among older folks from diverse ethnicities, but is also rapidly losing ground among young people (including non-whites).

The wild card in all this seems to be Catholics and immigrants, and where one chooses to put them. Are Catholics liberal, conservative, or their own category? Either way, they are doing quite well numbers-wise, and it's largely fueled by immigrants from Latino-Hispanic cultures.

So while this issue can be looked at in a number of ways, a few things are clear. Young Americans are leaving Christianity in large numbers, and they're telling us why. They're leaving because they see Christianity as too anti-gay, too anti-science, and too judgmental. Now, call me crazy but I don't tend to think those are issues in more liberal churches.

 

[Wormwood]

I agree that the church as a whole is in decline. However, I would have my own, very biased (I admit) interpretation on the statistics you offer. First, I think we would all agree that popular opinion is certainly not a viable way of determining what is "true" or "right." Many of Jesus' followers left him when they didn't like what he had to say. Clearly, the importance and accuracy of what Jesus had to say was not determined by the number of people who were willing to accept his teaching. So, whether the issue is liberal or conservative churches, attendance isn't always a good indicator of who is right on any particular issue.

Yet, in my estimation, the answer to your question is that liberal churches have little else to offer people other than the acceptance of cultural norms. I see the issue as very similar to the rise of Deism. Deism (although I would claim it is alive and well today) did not last long as a movement among intellectuals during the time of the Enlightenment. It seems that once the validity of the Bible is called in to question, miracles are pushed aside, and everything was determined to be explained rationally, God was of very little practical use...other than a uncaused first cause. In the same way, I feel that once Scriptures begin to be explained away on issues of homosexuality, sin, hell, demons, miracles, and historical narratives in the Bible, people have very little use for "church" anymore. When the church looks very much like the world, then while some it may agree with them, people see no more use in it. If the Bible has to be interpreted through the lens of cultural sensitivities and scientific naturalism to be understood, why is the Bible even needed. People can just use culture and scientific naturalism to determine their worldview and leave the unreliable Scriptures behind. At least that is my interpretation of the statistics if they are reflective of millennials as a whole. Likewise, it is also why I feel the statistics I mentioned so that for those who do come to church (or stay in church), doctrine and the reliability of the Scriptures are paramount.

 

[River Jordan]

I agree that the church as a whole is in decline. However, I would have my own, very biased (I admit) interpretation on the statistics you offer. First, I think we would all agree that popular opinion is certainly not a viable way of determining what is "true" or "right." Many of Jesus' followers left him when they didn't like what he had to say. Clearly, the importance and accuracy of what Jesus had to say was not determined by the number of people who were willing to accept his teaching. So, whether the issue is liberal or conservative churches, attendance isn't always a good indicator of who is right on any particular issue.

Yep, I definitely agree.

Yet, in my estimation, the answer to your question is that liberal churches have little else to offer people other than the acceptance of cultural norms. I see the issue as very similar to the rise of Deism. Deism (although I would claim it is alive and well today) did not last long as a movement among intellectuals during the time of the Enlightenment. It seems that once the validity of the Bible is called in to question, miracles are pushed aside, and everything was determined to be explained rationally, God was of very little practical use...other than a uncaused first cause. In the same way, I feel that once Scriptures begin to be explained away on issues of homosexuality, sin, hell, demons, miracles, and historical narratives in the Bible, people have very little use for "church" anymore. When the church looks very much like the world, then while some it may agree with them, people see no more use in it. If the Bible has to be interpreted through the lens of cultural sensitivities and scientific naturalism to be understood, why is the Bible even needed. People can just use culture and scientific naturalism to determine their worldview and leave the unreliable Scriptures behind. At least that is my interpretation of the statistics if they are reflective of millennials as a whole. Likewise, it is also why I feel the statistics I mentioned so that for those who do come to church (or stay in church), doctrine and the reliability of the Scriptures are paramount.

As I said earlier, I think a lot of this comes down to what each of us have in mind when we think of "liberal" or "conservative" churches. I don't think of my church as a "liberal" church, since we definitively believe in the divinity of Christ, salvation through His grace, the physical resurrection of Christ, etc. However, to a fundamentalist Christian my church would probably be thought of as "liberal" since we don't teach young-earth creationism, don't single out homosexuality as different than other sins, don't take a literalist approach to Biblical interpretation, etc. To illustrate this point, I've had teens in our church bring their friends in and I've seen those from a fundamentalist background complain that we're too liberal, and those from a liberal background complain that we're too conservative!

IMO the reason for these declines among young people are exactly what the young people are telling us. Too many churches today are overly focused on gays, too wrapped up in politics, in denial of reality (science issues), and a bit simplistic in their approach to the issues and world today's kids deal with. It's not a mystery...they've been asked and have answered very clearly.

 

[Wormwood]

I don't think of my church as a "liberal" church, since we definitively believe in the divinity of Christ, salvation through His grace, the physical resurrection of Christ, etc. However, to a fundamentalist Christian my church would probably be thought of as "liberal" since we don't teach young-earth creationism, don't single out homosexuality as different than other sins, don't take a literalist approach to Biblical interpretation, etc. To illustrate this point, I've had teens in our church bring their friends in and I've seen those from a fundamentalist background complain that we're too liberal, and those from a liberal background complain that we're too conservative!

Well, I don't think the issue is classifying each individual church. However, most of these classifications focus on particular denominations and their official stances on a variety of issues. Most mainline denominations (as I referenced in my statistics) have taken very liberal stances on a host of issues. Their focus become much more social than doctrinal. The teachings of the Bible became secondary to issues of "liberation" whether these were liberation issues regarding the poor, racial discrimination, or issues related to sexual orientation, etc. I would strongly disagree with your assessment that churches are "overly focused on gays" etc. Rather, I think more liberal churches have made social issues the focus and those that are more doctrinally based have simply refused to embrace this trend. It is the refusal to embrace the "liberation" of the homosexual from what they would classify as "oppressive Christian history" that has made more conservative churches stand out like a sore thumb on these issues.

As I have said before, I know of no prominent independent churches or evangelical churches that regularly preach on the issue of homosexuality, politics, or any other cultural issue. Yet this is almost exclusively what more liberal churches focus their attention on (it certainly doesn't come from the Bible). Most of these conservative churches focus on exegetical teaching through books of the Bible and address those issues as the passages dictate. I have attended many many many seminaries as well as listened to thousands of sermons from conservative pastors all over the world. I can tell you that from my (very experienced) perspective, you are out of touch with the reality of the issue. I think you are taking your cue from news channels and social media rather than any real grasp of what is regularly being taught in these conservative churches.

 

[River Jordan]

Wormwood,

Again, I'm just relaying what the millennials who are actually leaving the faith are citing as their reasons for leaving. If you think they're wrong, then perhaps you should take it up with them.

 

[Wormwood]

Well, my point is...as my stats showed, the churches that preach the Bible with conviction are the only ones not in steep decline. I wouldn't want to be in a church that preaching politics and social issues all the time either. From my experience, most conservative churches do not...which may explain both our statistics.

 

[River Jordan]

Well, my point is...as my stats showed, the churches that preach the Bible with conviction are the only ones not in steep decline.

But that's not actually the question we were asking. Our question was much more specific, i.e., which parts of Christianity are losing young people (the whole college thing)? And as the stats showed, it is evangelical churches who are losing the youth in the greatest percentages. Their overall numbers are holding steady due to new older adults joining.

I wouldn't want to be in a church that preaching politics and social issues all the time either. From my experience, most conservative churches do not...which may explain both our statistics.

Could be. But I don't see how the reasons young people are citing are more of a problem in liberal churches.