According to Time Magazine, one of the 10 Ideas That are Changing Your Life is The Rise of the Nones. Who are these “nones”? They are the “none of the aboves,” those 16% of Americans who eschew religious affiliation, a majority 
of whom believe in God. According to the article, the “nones” reject organized religion as being rigid and dogmatic, instead looking for unorthodox, uniquely personal ways to enrich their spiritual lives. They constitute the fastest growing religious group in the Unites States.
Findings like these are typically used to indict organized religion and bemoan how “out of touch” the Church has become with youth and culture. For instance, The Wartburg Watch attributes this religious exodus to elements such as these within mainstream religion:
- The rise of hardcore Neo-Calvinism (Calvinistas)
- An increasingly rightward shift in the SBC
- An emphasis on authoritarianism,
- Strict complementarianism/patriarchy
- Young earth creationism
- Rigid eschatological “theories”
- Disciplinary actions for silly reasons (a questioning spirit)
- Political activism and church/political party alliances
- Isolation within mega-churches
- The rise of the prosperity gospel
- Membership covenants and discipline contracts
- Distrust of science
As one who’s been involved in churches for most of his life, even serving as a staff pastor in an Evangelical / Charismatic church for 11 years, I can testify to the reality of some of these dynamics. Doctrinal squabbles, traditionalism, institutional rigidity, self-righteousness, and anti-intellectualism contribute to cultural disconnect in more ways than Christians often care to admit.
Frankly, some churches deserve to be left.
The problem, however, is that most of these discussions avoid a huge factor in the decline of church membership and the disillusionment of Millennials: Pervasive postmodernism.
A closer look behind the decline in church membership would most likely reveal a set of philosophical assumptions that contribute to the shift. Millennials are the truly first postmodern generation. In keeping with postmodernism’s relativistic paradigm, the “nones'” reject objective truth and replace Scriptural authority with a radical subjectivism. While they recognize an innate desire for spirituality, they seek to do their own thing. No one church or religion has a corner of the market, and asserting such cuts cross-grain with the “nones'” philosophical aesthetic. As a result, religious truth claims take a back seat to individual choice and expression. In this way, culture (both academic and pop) is as much responsible for the decline of Church membership as is the Church.
I’ve been surprised (if not suspicious) about why this obvious angle is left unaddressed. With the Bash the Church Bandwagon in high gear, it appears that statistics such as these skew the findings in order to (1) discredit organized religion, and (2) pave the way for a “new” religious outlook. Sound conspiratorial? Good.
So it was refreshing to see this angle explored at the Stand to Reason blog:
…religion primarily is an effort to discover reality and align ourselves with it. Religion is about finding out what’s true – about God, the world, ourselves – and aligning ourselves according to that reality. Reality isn’t subjectively defined. It’s objective. Religion represents man’s efforts to find out what’s true about God. And that’s what Jesus said He wanted. He told the Samaritan woman that He wanted to be worshipped in spirit and truth. (John 4) He says God is looking for those who want to know the truth about Him.
Religion may be “rigid and dogmatic” – and admittedly in inappropriate ways sometimes. But truth and reality are rigid and dogmatic. That’s the nature of truth and reality. Sure, there are lots of disagreements over what that is. But the solution isn’t to abandon the effort for subjective spirituality, and that’s what it seems to me “the nones” have done.
In this light, the “nones” are leaving the Church because they are embracing “subjective spirituality,” not just because organized religion is out of touch. Their religious defection is but the symptom of an even greater illness: the disavowal of objective truth. Once again, this is not to glibly dismiss the Church’s problems, for they are many. Rather, this is to question the larger cultural climate which has contributed to waning religious membership.
So how do Christian churches address these trends? Regrettably, many do so by embracing and asserting postmodernism.
In his piece Letting Doubters in the Door, Philip Clayton, dean of Claremont School of Theology, suggests that the wrong thing to do is encourage “a return to the ‘faith of our fathers,’ stricter adherence to creeds [or] better marketing methods.” Rather, Clayton sees the Emerging Church as a model for recovering the “nones”:
I advocate a radically different solution: the Emerging Church. It’s a movement based on understanding the reasons for mainstream religion’s dramatic decline: improved scientific understanding, changing social norms, an increasingly pluralistic religious culture and more freedom to doubt and question — a freedom that until the last three centuries was mostly absent or suppressed and that is still resisted, sometimes violently, in much of the world today.
In my experience, the nones are not rejecting God. They are rejecting doctrinal requirements that they no longer find believable, along with the rigid structures of many organized religions. For that reason, the rise of the nones may well be a new kind of spiritual awakening, one in which doubters are welcome.
In the Christian tradition, for example, the Emerging Church invites participation from all who find themselves attracted to the teachings, actions and person of Jesus. It isn’t crucial that members call themselves Christians, or that they believe Bible stories literally (rather than metaphorically), or even that they are believers rather than agnostics and atheists. As long as people want to sincerely engage with the teachings of Jesus and with the communities that seek to live by those values — “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” “Love your neighbor,” “Blessed are the peacemakers” — they are welcome.
Though churches found under the Emergent label are diverse, Clayton touches upon some of their key features: a pluralistic, non-dogmatic, open-ended, ecumenical approach. In other words, religious postmoderns speak to the decline in religious affiliation by embracing, rather than critiquing, postmodernism. Eschewing Absolutes becomes, as it were, an evangelistic tool.
From my perspective, religious progressivism is not the answer to the “nones,” but a perpetuation of the destructive philosophies that have shaped them.
So how should Christian churches respond to “the Rise of the Nones”? Honest, humble self-evaluation would be welcome. Institutional flexibility and cultural savvy would help. As would, less dogmatism about “non-essential” doctrines. But at the heart of “noneness” is terminal individuality and philosophical abstraction. And the Church can’t reach out to the “nones” by promoting… Nothing.
It’s funny…you can easily now get into the argument of which one is more of a concern, the post-modern pulling of people away from churches or the church “hypocrisy,” if you will, driving them away. Of course, you can also just say they’re equally important. I have to agree with you, Mike…people are just becoming more and more amoral. They want their ethics/morality to hang over the world but, if I may, who’s morality is it anyway? They want people not to murder each other, but under what pretense? They want Christian morality without God, really.
I’d say the only solution is simply to continue presenting, living and preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It sure is working in other parts of the world…and in many pockets in the US, too! I’ve also read an interesting book (forget the name) that essentially says Christianity is moving away from North America and Western Europe and setting up shop in Asia, Africa and South America. All things considered, this sure makes sense to me.
One last thought: I’ve heard Doug Wilson (prominent pastor) say that Christopher Hitchens (prominent atheist who Wilson debated) was always at least respectful of Christians who held their beliefs strongly…even if he couldn’t wait for the opportunity to argue with them about it. He respected the fact that they stood for something. On the other hand, Wilson said Hitchens was always frustrated with Christians who were wishy-washy with their beliefs.
While we may disagree on some things we are dead center on the same page here. Marketers have known for some time (though they use different labels) the effect of post-modern thought on consumers. People are far less brand conscious than two generations ago. Everything is about endless options to ensure reaching every niche market. Why else would there be five versions of Special K in the grocery store?
Though I make people unhappy when I say it, there is little difference between the Emergent Church of today, Jesus Movement of the 70s, and liberalism of the 60’s. Different labels – same assumptions. Terminal individuality and philosophical abstraction is as well put a description as I’ve ever heard. There is some to learn from all of these movements but there is also much to be avoided.
I grow weary of discussions about what “the church” is doing wrong to chase people away. All a person has to do is honestly read what Jesus has to say in the Bible and it’s enough to make anyone run. “He just called me an adulterer!” (for instance)
That’s why people are running, and why they will keep running away from the church.
I understand why pastors/congregations may get up in arms about the fact that more and more people seem to be leaving the church, but the pastor who’s ultimately going to make the most difference is the one who doesn’t focus on statistics, but instead chooses to do his daily best to walk, teach, and act like Jesus.
Agree 100% Jessica, and that’s part of the situation: Pastors who simply live for Jesus are seen as antiquated because they appeal to Christ (and generally Scripture along with Him) as authority…and the word ‘authority’ today might as well be as toxic as laying down an f-bomb. Pastors themselves are seen as authority figures and thus subjected to a massive amount of distrust and suspicion. They might as well be seen, unfairly, as mini-CEOs of their companies…their churches. And we all know what people think of CEOs…
I agree with this, Jessica. I think you are right-on.
So do I, Jess.
Hi! I just stumbled on your blog today, and I wanted to post because I appreciate your perspective and am glad you are entering this discussion. And also because I absolutely love your collection of quotes on the side! They are fantastic.
I agree that we shouldn’t abandon truth because it’s uncomfortable in a particular setting – and some settings certainly lend themselves better to certain aspects of our faith than others. But I think you may have the cart before the horse. I don’t believe faith should compromise with culture (and when culture goes wrong on a point, faith ought to step in to correct it), but I do believe that the Christian faith is relevant in every culture, whether it’s the Middle East in the 1st century, Europe in the middle ages, “East,” “West,” “North,” “South,” or what-have-you in modern times.
If the Bible really is living and breathing, and if God really is bigger than any one time or place, I think our faith has something to say to every culture – in every culture’s own language. Just like you wouldn’t say someone has to read the Bible in English to be a Christian (or even the original Greek and Hebrew), I don’t think you have to be an Enlightenment-versed absolutist to know Jesus and love others as he did. I think Christianity is just as accessible to a modernist, humanist, science-will-solve-everything culture as it is to a postmodernist, Millennial, nothing-is-sound culture. It may look and sound a little different, but it’s still alive and true.
In fact, I think your Flannery O’Connor quote fits quite well here. The figures Jesus drew in his parables were “large and startling” to the almost-blind of his day. But “large and startling” varies quite a lot with culture. What I hear you saying is that Millennials should adopt the cultural philosophies of previous generations in order to know God properly. That seems out of order to me. Shouldn’t God be able speak into their culture with its strengths and weaknesses just as he has in cultures all around the world? As Christians, shouldn’t our figures be ones that the culture around us finds large and startling? I think that’s what “bridge building apologetics” and the emergent church to a large extent are doing with Millennial culture. They haven’t abandoned truth, they’ve just painted it with different colours.
It’s certainly worth having a discussion about emergent doctrines and whether they match up to accepted church practices and historical biblical interpretations. But I think it’s also important to make sure we’re not allowing our our own culture’s take on Christianity to influence those critiques.
Also, your Woody Allen quote is fantastic. I’m saving that one now.
Thanks for commenting, Frodine! I’d only suggest that “Millennials should adopt the cultural philosophies of previous generations” insofar as those philosophies correspond with truth. God can, and does, speak in any culture and language. Not disputing that. However, the biblical concept of “God” is tethered to very clear parameters. (For instance, God is not space alien with green skin who migrated from a dying planet made of Limburger cheese.) Millennials are free to renegotiate who they believe God is, but the Bible is fairly static. So at some point, the “philosophies of previous generations” might be spot on.
I think you’re wrong about this, Mike. I think there is a generational gap in your understanding, and I’m going to think about this a while and come back (and honestly, I have other things to do, so that’s my real excuse. But this is an important topic.)
Just to add a point, that being not all of us “nones” are loosey-goosey true faith rejectors, out to slam back tequila shooters and par-tay like lunatics at the next Burning Man gathering; some of us are strong Christians who have experienced some truly crappy things in church, and are in reboot mode. We haven’t walked away from Jesus, but are taking time away–in some cases a lot of time away–from organized church to lick our wounds in solitude, and to calm our grieving spirits.
Oh, John, do I ever get this. Happen to be there at the moment.
This would be me. I love the Lord! More than anything I want to be a shining light of truth, but I’m taking time to listen and discern on how I’m to do that. In the past year I’ve seen ugliness that has made me question a lot about the church. What’s true and what’s constructed? I want truth. I don’t want to be wishy washy, nor do I consider myself to be. I just see a lot of harm coming from that first list of reasons in this post as to why Christians are leaving organized religion. A fair portion of those reasons are true for me, so I don’t think they should be discounted as excuses for embracing subjectivity.
John,
That’s a nice way of putting it. I gather we’re in the same place.
Hi Mike. I’ve been a long time reader/enjoyer of your blog. This is my first time commenting, though. 🙂
From the Stand to Reason blog you quoted:
“But truth and reality are rigid and dogmatic. That’s the nature of truth and reality.”
I used to believe this, but my perspective has completely changed after reading and studying the Bible (intensely and cover-to-cover) for three years. I find the nature of truth to be bendable and inclusive, and to mean different things to different people at different times in their lives, as well as different times throughout the ages. Perhaps you disagree. As the very next sentence in the quote points out:
“Sure, there are lots of disagreements over what that [truth] is.”
… Yes there are. Even the theologians can’t agree about what the Scriptures mean or say after years and years of study. In many cases, they are completely opposed. So then what? We are told that the Spirit teaches us without the help of men. “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you” (John 14:26). What if we feel the Spirit leading us down the “nones” path? I ask not to be facetious, but as someone who has “eschewed Absolutes” based on the leading of the Spirit, and has found more peace and love and joy in my heart than ever before.
My faith has evolved over time. I can’t speak about trends or labels called ’emergent’ or ‘postmodernism’… I can only speak of my own experience. Every time I thought I had arrived at Truth, a bigger perspective was waiting in the wings. I believe God is sovereign enough to bring His creation to where He needs us to be—in His timing, with freedom to hear His voice and obey Him as He teaches us personally along the way.
Barb, thanks for finally commenting! Even though theologians disagree about lots of things, we must be clear that Christian theology is still rooted in certain specifics. The nature of God, the nature of Man, the nature and work of Christ, etc. At some point, denying or renegotiating certain doctrines leaves one, well, not Christian. You said the Spirit will lead us into all truth, but this assumes 2 things that are important to my point: One, the Spirit is a specific something and not another, and Two, truth CAN be arrived at.
I’m not sure what you mean by “the Spirit is a specific something and not another,” but regarding your second point… Yes, my hope and belief is that one day Truth CAN be arrived at—but I no longer insist it has to be in this short lifetime and/or based off of what the history of Christian theology “teaches” us (in quotes b/c “ingrains” within us is also applicable, as well as “indoctrinates”). We don’t know what God has up His sleeve for future revelations.
Thank you for a thought-provoking post and comments.
While I have a great fondness for The Church, she is not Christ. She is Christ’s bride.
She is not–and should not expect to be–immune from criticism, honest assessment and feedback. After all, EVERY LAST ONE OF US who has claimed Jesus Christ as Lord is as much The Church as the rest.
I often see honest assessments of corporate worship gatherings written off or glibly dismissed as “church bashing”. That phrase makes me very uncomfortable as it implies any criticism is unwarranted and comes from a place of selfishness or pride.
It says that God can only be served by those who do things in one way and cannot be truly known outside of that way. It often exudes the stink of self-righteousness.
I am presently a None, having left a corporate worship body for several very valid reasons, many of which you mention. I take great exception to the idea that a decision I have made prayerfully over the course of many years and with much counsel is simply something I do because I suffer from “terminal individuality.”
I maintain my affiliation with the cause of Christ and my salvation is not (and cannot be) lost. I am still doctrinally Mennonite, even though there are presently no active fellowships in my area. But I will not continue to spend time that is meant for communal worship and Bible study in a cultural climate that leaves me hostile to the culture of American Christianity. I accept that my differences with my former communal worship center are as much cultural as anything. In a transient society that’s to be expected.
When you conclude that those who leave communal worship centers are selfish (that IS what “terminal individuality” actually means) you discount others’ motivation. I see a trend here and I am not overawed.
Katherine, I think you’re broad-brushing my points. I said criticism of the Church if often warranted and some churches deserve to be left. I don’t believe churches or the Church are above criticism. You might disgree with me, but I also believe there is a trend to pile on organized religion, what I’m calling the Bash the Church Bandwagon. But to be clear, I am not saying that everyone who leaves a church does so for selfish reasons. I am saying that “terminal individuality” is the fruit of subjectivism, and that this may be contributing to the “nones” as much as any problem in the Church. Thanks for commenting!
You DO know that you only say “thanks for commenting” and “I appreciate your comments” when you are irritated, right? 🙂
Organised religion has done wonderful things throughout history. It has built hospitals and fed the poor and taken the Gospel to all corners of the globe.
But it _is_ due for criticism. Especially now. It spent the bulk of the 90s and much of the early 00s trying to look more like The World so that it could draw a larger crowd. Much of what we call “organised religion” looks more like “Christic Entertainment”. The modern houses of communal worship gatherings are temples to pleasure and convenience. TVs! Gymnasia! Roller rinks and swimming pools and Starbucks and ATMs…all right there and very handy for the busy mom who is dropping her child off for the morning.
Why should ‘The Milleneals’ expect church to be anything other than another shopping mall when that’s what we’ve raised them to expect? How can your generation or mine sit back and criticise the moral relativism of these young people when
WE PROGRAMMED THEM THAT WAY???
Church to these people isn’t where you set aside your worldly attitudes and gather to focus on Christ and learn about what He wants for you. It’s all about Fun! and Good Times! and Pizza at 7:37 in the Youth Wing! So now that they are old enough to start being hit up for paying the bills for the gym and the sauna and the sound system they don’t necessarily see what all the fuss is about. They could, after all, get the same “services” from the Y.
If there is a Bash The Church Bandwagon it’s being fueled by those who were children in the churches of the 90s and 00s and who never learned that Following Jesus means dying to yourself. They have always been taught the opposite.
By their parents.
Very good points, Katherine.
HUGE generalizations and stereotypes here, Katherine. One of the most influential books I read was written 20-plus years ago, David Wells’ “No Place for Truth.” It was a critique of how Modernism was destroying the Church. Could that embrace have contributed to the current attitude of Millennials toward religion? Absolutely! But is the answer to condemn, blame, or reject the Church? Mightn’t the correct response be to address the over-correction, i.e., the embrace of postmodernism?
As a sidenote, I’m genuinely appreciative that people read this blog and comment here. I am truly humbled. It may seem like I say “Thanks” because I’m irriated or want to rush people off. At times, it could be. But most of the times I say that it’s because 1.) I AM appreciative of their comments and 2.) I want to remain friendly while disagreeing.
We agree, Mike. 😉
You sound very much like a Modernist in this piece. Just like any secular filter, Modernism is not all right nor all wrong. Postmodernism is messed up and makes faith difficult in some ways, but so does Modernism. When you say “subjectivism” I read “gray areas.” There’s room for much gray in Christianity — no, scratch that: There’s much gray in Christianity.
Strictly speaking, I’m not a member of the group you’re talking about, so I don’t feel I can fully address the issue. But then again, neither are you. Have you attempted to see things from their side?
I’m not saying postmodernism is the be-all, end-all, nor that those walking away from the Church are faultless.
I’m not sure I’ve ever disagreed with you more than I do through much of this piece. Like Frodine said, “What I hear you saying is that Millennials should adopt the cultural philosophies of previous generations in order to know God properly.”
Word Lily, hang around my blog long enough and we’re bound to disagree about something! I’m very much into “grey areas.” But as I’ve said before, greys exist because of blacks and whites. I don’t think I’m a Modernist because I believe in too many greys. I’m not a postmodernist because I believe in too many blacks and whites. I’m not sure what that makes me. Hey, thanks for joining the discussion!
Two things for a start. This country was founded on principles of individuality. In fact, Christianity has long had an emphasis on individualism. How many times have I heard in church, as if it’s the word of God, such (non) truisms as “God helps those who help themselves” or “Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps”? This country was even founded on rejecting authority and starting one’s own church that suited the people better than the last one. Okay, that was the first thing. The second thing is that philosophy is, by its very nature, abstract. I don’t know how you avoid abstracts if you are a philosopher.
And then I take issue with the idea that young people are leaving church because of postmodern relativism. Most people I know are rigidly dogmatic, and I’m always pleasantly surprised when I meet someone who can think in abstracts, and who is willing to step outside of a priori arguments.
My parents are nones. I have been a none, and still am to a large degree, since I often skip church and let my family attend w/o me. Most people I know are, in fact, nones. They all have different reasons for leaving the church, but I’ve never heard one of them say they left because truth is relative. They left because they were hurt, or they didn’t like the rigid class system in place in churches, or they had a job that forced them to work on Sundays. That last? BIG issue w/ young people. I used to have a job in which Sunday was one of the biggest money-making days due to the after church crowd, who were rude, demanding, and allowed their children to tear the place apart and who didn’t seem to know or care that they were preventing “nones” from attending church.
I think you take a reasonably fair stance in this, so I’m not meaning to attack you, but the whole postmodernism just didn’t resonate with me at all. And yes, I understand. I’m not in my 20s, but neither are you. There could simply be something else going on (as what Jessica said above) that we are all missing.
Jill,
I have to agree with you 100%. Saying that postmodernism is a problem is only half the issue. I left church due to hurt and after heavy prayer and scripture readings, I had to be sure before I left the church building/family/ whatever.
I guess I have to go a different route on this as someone who has left the “church”. First of all, my definition of church are people fellowshipping together, praying for one another and esteeming one another(Phillipans 2:3). Actually, having a building where people must pay an extra rent to have a roof over their heads is a choice. Meeting in a cafe, singing songs in the park, and worshipping the Lord is of most import.
Now, why have me and my husband leave the church officially? Was it because it wasn’t “pop” enough? No. Was it because it was strict? No. Was it because we wanted to go our own way? Nope. Nada.
The reason we left our church and other churches is because much of what is practiced inside the church is not biblical. The pastor is held as god and not as man/woman in leadership under God. That is a huge problem. Secondly. Matthew 6:24 says, ““No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money. ”
Churches are trying to serve God and money. I can go on all day about the deeper issues surrounding tithing and “offerings” and what the scripture really says about it. I will post again later, however we have had people of the church send curses to each other and other members, including us! Not cool.
Some people play it safe by going to church: If they go to church, it lessens their motivation to witness to those in the streets and other countries. Church is considered safe where those who can afford it, can wear the big “poofy” hats and nice suits, drive fancy cars and if you come as you are, you are shunned. I only know this from experience.
So anyone can say we are “running”. Good. I need to run far from hypocrisy and into Christ’s church. The way it was meant to be.
Thanks.
Erica,
You sound as though you have had similar experiences to mine which have led you to a similar conclusion and place.
Of course, it was horrible…tough decision.
Jill, I know plenty of people who leave the Church for reasons seemmingly unconnected with postmodernism. No doubt. But are you prepared to say that shifting worldviews and paradigms HAVEN’T contributed to the Millennial’s views of Church? The emergent movement which the professor suggested as the alternative in the article above, IS largely postmodern in their approach. It’s quite a broad movement. The reason I quoted him was to draw a clear connection between postmodern beliefs and Millennials.
At first, I wanted to say something like “if postmodernism means rejecting Calvinist thinking, by God, I’m all for it.” But that’s not actually true. I think what’s really going on is not a lack of accepting truth, but of a lot of young people who have had to reconcile the objective truths they’ve learned in public schools and universities with the objective truths they’ve learned from parents and in church. Cognitive dissonance can become very uncomfortable after a while, and it might be easier to dwell in a place where there is no subjective truth at all. This isn’t an effect of postmodernism, but the effect of education. What are we doing to our children when we create this kind of cognitive dissonance in them? I once sat in on an evolution vs intelligent design debate at the local university (which is a science U; I live in a science town), and a young, Christian high school girl stood up and practically started bawling and said something akin to, “nobody is giving me real answers. I don’t know what to believe.” She has since left the church. Any surprise there? None at all to me.
I’m wondering if the real problem in your story with the young girl is not one of “no one is giving me answers” as much as it is “no one has taught me how to think critically”. The biggest problem I see in our modern sermons is the “How to” paradigm. Let me, the pastor, tell you how to solve your problems. Here are the answers. Being an apologist, I may have a lot of answers. But, questions come from people who are hurting to begin with and most of time people who do not have the critical thinking skills to logical assemble what they’ve heard and seen. That lack of thinking skills is very postmodern. For logic requires absolutes at least in Western philosophy.
Have we let down this generation because we haven’t taught them how to think critically? Logic and critical thinking have been supplanted by video game mentality. Life is compartmentalized into disconnected chunks. We have a generation that doesn’t realize they are a whole, not just the sum of their parts. I have two kids both in their twenties and they admit this is a problem for them. When problems arise, they want to hit the “reset” button or move onto another “level” without finishing the current level.
No, I don’t think a lack of critical thinking skills is a postmodern problem. Logical syllogisms are for the brightest and best–historically, for the elite. And they don’t necessarily work off accepted truth, either. You can have a correctly worked syllogism with wrong premises.
Just so you know I didn’t make that up about critical thinking, here is some hard info:
From “the Millennial Student: A New Generation of Learners:
“The Millennial Student enters college with a different expectation than past generations. They have become accustomed to being hand held through the educational process and anticipate a similar environment in college. As a result of this nurturing environment, Millennials need assistance in developing independent thinking and decision-making skills.”
“Group dynamic learning is their preference but group activities must be carefully designed so independent and critical thinking can develop.”
http://www.nataej.org/2.2/EJMonaco.pdf
Thanks for your post. Great discussion.
Coming from two very divergent disciplines, the aforementioned David Wells and Neal Postman warned of what would later come to be termed Digital Natives. They both saw the ultimate outcome of a culture where discussion was more important than conclusions, rapid engagement more interesting than genuine enlightenment, and a systematic approach to truth less and less appealing or even attempted.
Contrary to one comment from someone here, logic has not always been exclusive to the elite. What is seen today as exclusive Classical Education in our day was the normal course of training for those in their early teens seeking any education beyond the local school house. And what was one of the courses taught to those 12 and 13 yrs olds? Not social studies (didn’t exist in the 1700s). Not political science. Logic was one of the first disciplines these youth were required to master before moving on. Teach them to think and they will master the rest in due time was the educational theory.
If there is any place I fear many in the church have failed is in teaching the next generation to think. Scripture never calls on us to leave our brains at the door when we enter the fellowship. It does however call on us to bring every thought captive under the Lordship of Christ.
Tim you are right on the mine! I’m reading “iY Generation” by Tim Elmore and it is frightening and startling how the Generation Digital, the Millenials, the iGeneration is suffering under the onslaught of our technology and lacking critical thinking skills and the ability to think in a linear fashion. Here is a quote:
Instead of proceeding in a linear fashion (with thoughts moving from A to B to C), “iBrains” work more like computer screens with a choice of icons. Random, even contradictory, sequences are marks of their world.
While we may disagree on some things we are dead center on the same page here. I was going to say virtually the same thing Tim said, Mike. This is why I keep coming back to your blog. You have the same anchor I have, so all your other thoughts prod me to think more deeply, knowing that you’re adrift.
Becky