Youth Turned Off by Religion and Politics, Turn Away From Church
Young people are turning away from churches because they associate Christianity with Republican politics, a study reveals.
Political science Professors David Campbell (University of Notre Dame) and Robert Putnam (Harvard University) published their findings, "God and Caesar in America: Why Mixing Religion and Politics Is Bad for Both," in the March/April edition of Foreign Affairs. Campbell and Putnam also wrote American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us (2010), which was recently released in paperback. For that book, they have been surveying the same group of people from 2006 to 2011. The same data was used for the Foreign Affairs article.
One of the most surprising findings from the data they collected, Campbell said in a March 13 interview with The Christian Post, was that people are driven away or toward religious involvement because of their political leanings. In particular, those...
"and as you go, preach, saying, the kingdom of heaven is at hand" mat10:7
this is what Christ instructed his disciples to preach. the kindgom of heaven.
the kingdom you preach, Jim, is the one that the Arab Christians in the other article are escaping.
which is also why youth are turned off by religion and politics in the church.
because you are not preaching the kindgom that Christ authorized you to preach.
I remember asking you how many kingdoms there are and you were not able to answer. I'll probably not discuss this any further and may regret this comment......but it is one thing to have an opinion about politics, but a whole other one to attach the gospel to such things that cause people groups to flee. Christ's name should never be put on this.
Gil Rugh said or, wrote: The book of Revelation is a book about the coming earthly kingdom of Jesus Christ, the Messiah of Israel. . The Messianic kingdom has not begun yet. No part of it is underway yet. When it begins, it will be a dramatic worldwide event, that all will know about. I stress this, because there's much misunderstanding on the kingdom. Many people today believe that the kingdom is spiritual and exists in hearts, and that fulfills the prophecies and promises.
Some people believe the Messianic kingdom has begun, but we won't really come into full bloom until Christ is personally here. I find no support for that in Scripture either.
The Bible is clear, that at a future point in time, Jesus Christ will personally appear from heaven, and come to earth, destroy His enemies, and establish a kingdom over the earth.
The Messianic Kingdom has begun, as was announced at Christ's coming. His work at the cross was sufficient and complete. The law was written within their hearts as prophecied in the Old Testament.
Jesus told Peter to put away the sword. Unlike what Judas wanted, Jesus made it clear that the Kingdom would not be advanced through bloodshed.
Hey, I'm not even a pacifist, but just because something happens does not mean it has God's stamp of approval. Just because something turns to your favor, doesn't mean God will say 'well done'. It has always been the way of man to steal and call on his gods for approval---just doesn't make it so.
If there is one Kingdom that we Christians are about, it is the eternal one. If we are contradicting that, we have lost our first love.
SteveR, the church and the kingdom will never be the same, The Kingdom Of Our Lord Will Come. If your comment isn't supporting any form of volition, then I find little to disagree with what you said.
John for Jesus, excellent comment:
2 Timothy 4 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires; 4 and will turn away their ears from the truth, and will turn aside to myths. 5 But you, be sober in all things, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.---NASB
I don't neccesarily believe it is the churches fault that youth turn away from the church. There are still decent churches out there for young adults to go to if they wanted to. However, in the last days there will be a falling away no matter how correct the preaching may.
Context wrote: Just like it's really about a Bible/Constitution interpretation disagreement regarding the fetus in utero. Not a life or death / chained or free issue.
The Constitution and Bible are two different documents, one is flawed and one is perfect. If you want a government based on the 2nd, you will have to wait until the full number of the Elect is completed. What our kids are seeing is that we pretend to want perfection, but we are using it as a smokescreen to get what we lust after. Our willingness to accept Romney shows we really want tax cuts, better jobs and an aggressive foreign policy to physically dominate other countries not Christian values
SteveR wrote: The Civil War dealt with State rights, and much less about the human rights of slaves.
Just like it's really about a Bible/Constitution interpretation disagreement regarding the fetus in utero. Not a life or death / chained or free issue.
Abolition Time wrote: What about the letter of the Bible? If he can't rise in our day, at least, to the level of Lincoln, advocating for the complete abolition of abortion, how can he even claim the name of Christ? Can you imagine even a democrat candidate in 1860 who was against federal elective abortion but tolerating it at the state level? The ensuing Civil War wouldn't have been as much about slavery.
The Civil War dealt with State rights, and much less about the human rights of slaves. Lincoln was more interested in deporting the exslaves than anything else.
The Founders secured State Rights because they felt they could understand simplicities like abortion is murder, but not even our Supreme Court can understand that. If you want a new Constitution, thats an entirely different argument from why our kids are leaving the Church
Mike wrote: Apparently Lincoln's anti-slavery was of the measured sort. The Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves only in the States in rebellion against the federal government, but not in the slave-holding border States fighting with the fed gov.
Unlike modern Presidents, Lincoln understood the Constitutional limitations on his powers; he could not abolish slavery merely by executive order, other than what was compassed by his war powers, which was the point here. Hence the qualification to those areas of the country "under rebellion", which forfeited their peacetime liberties.
BTW, this exposed the falsehood of prewar Democrat electoral propaganda that Lincoln was a "Black Republican" radical. Real Radical Republicans like Sumner were impatient with Lincoln.
jpw wrote: --- Simple fact is that many conservatives today do not want the cohn. They want pappa guv to provide security. This must come with an aging nation, especially one where the generations are not nearby to take care of one another. So for them, surveillance may not seem like a big deal. The whole dehumanizing process of being watched by cameras, body searched or radiated at airports, makes them feel secure I guess. I guess I would rather the article discussed why an aging evangelical church would be 'turned on', as they say, to a big brother surveillance society run by darwinists, pushing this on the world with remote adventures and how that makes them feel safe.
A little security in exchange for a loss of liberty works for those who don't want to grow up. I can't say I've met actual conservatives who favor this, however.
If abortion was brought back to states, and it was recognized that life begins at conception....... then abortion would be like any other crime...... tried in state court.
Simple fact is that many conservatives today do not want the cohn. They want pappa guv to provide security.
This must come with an aging nation, especially one where the generations are not nearby to take care of one another.
So for them, surveillance may not seem like a big deal.
The whole dehumanizing process of being watched by cameras, body searched or radiated at airports, makes them feel secure I guess.
I guess I would rather the article discussed why an aging evangelical church would be 'turned on', as they say, to a big brother surveillance society run by darwinists, pushing this on the world with remote adventures and how that makes them feel safe.
He's certainly not as biblical as Lincoln: "I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I can not remember when I did not so think, and feel." -The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. ---
Apparently Lincoln's anti-slavery was of the measured sort. The Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves only in the States in rebellion against the federal government, but not in the slave-holding border States fighting with the fed gov.
SteveR wrote: Call it a Weakness or Strength, Paul would follow the letter of the Constitution if he were Elected.
What about the letter of the Bible? If he can't rise in our day, at least, to the level of Lincoln, advocating for the complete abolition of abortion, how can he even claim the name of Christ?
Can you imagine even a democrat candidate in 1860 who was against federal elective abortion but tolerating it at the state level? The ensuing Civil War wouldn't have been as much about slavery.
Abolition Time wrote: Paul would gladly endorse a Constitutional Amendment prohibiting federal abortions. Then, he would allow states to allow abortion according to the will of the people there. His hope would be that every state would outlaw abortion. He's certainly not as biblical as Lincoln: "I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I can not remember when I did not so think, and feel." -The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. If abortion is not wrong, nothing is wrong.
Call it a Weakness or Strength, Paul would follow the letter of the Constitution if he were Elected. He doesnt believe the POTUS has the authority to make that law for the States
btw: Speaking of politics, your propensity for partial truths reminds me of Doeg the Edomite
SteveR wrote: Paul was a RESIDENT at the time, he was a STUDENT of the residency that allowed the baby to die. It left a mark on his soul, and he has been a vocal opponent of Abortion since. From the same article " Paul is an absolutist when it comes to abortion. He does not believe one should be had under any circumstances" What is your point?
Paul would gladly entertain a Constitutional Amendment prohibiting federal abortions. Then, he would allow states to each allow abortion according to the will of the people there. His pipe dream would be that every state would outlaw abortion.
He's certainly not as biblical as Lincoln:
"I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I can not remember when I did not so think, and feel." -The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln.
Paul Follies wrote: "As a resident OB ... I watched as the newborn was left to die ..." Ron Paul for President 2012 Ad "I'm Ron Paul and I just stood there while they expired." This is Christian?
Paul was a RESIDENT at the time, he was a STUDENT of the residency that allowed the baby to die. It left a mark on his soul, and he has been a vocal opponent of Abortion since. From the same article " Paul is an absolutist when it comes to abortion. He does not believe one should be had under any circumstances"
"I'm Ron Paul and I just stood there while the baby expired."
This is Christian?
SteveR wrote: Maybe you are underestimating our Youth? GOP voters under 30 in many states vote overwhelmingly for Ron Paul, and Ron Paul is the most sound of the GOP 4 from a Christian point of view.
Mike wrote: It's interesting the youth are leaving the church because of said unification with politics, yet are enthralled by politics, for which churchgoers are held in disdain. (In spite of the heading of this thread, it was youth voted Obama in)
Maybe you are underestimating our Youth? GOP voters under 30 in many states vote overwhelmingly for Ron Paul, and Ron Paul is the most sound of the GOP 4 from a Christian point of view.
COMMENTS | 
