Bridging cultural barriers with the gospel Courtenay McCormick explains how Alpha reaches Hispanics in Tennessee
Rocking for the gospel Steve Beard survived Ichthus and lived to tell about it
What can an ancient burial box tell us about Jesus? Ben WitheringtonIII unveils the significance of the James ossuary
Still knocking on heaven’s door
Scott M. Marshall explains the significance of the new Bob Dylan tribute album
COLUMNS
Editorial
The Risk of Renewal Groups
Renew Women’s NetworkNaming, Blaming, and Shaming
Mortals & the DivineThe Sweet Soul Music of Al Green
The Next Generation Privatism: An Unholy Fear of Influence
The Great Commission Ministry Beyond the “Nine-Day Wonder”
From the Heart The Sabbath Date Day
DEPARTMENTS
Letters
to the editor
News Analysis Political propaganda pervades Response
UM membership figures show growth outside the U.S.
Bishop Sprague blasts “Christo-centric exclusivism”
British theologian N.T. Wright comes to defense of the Resurrection
Liberal UM activists publish new book on "conservative renewal groups”
It’s been a little troubling to hear “good church kids” hedge their comments with the quick and earnest disclaimer, “but, I can’t force my opinion on anyone else.” Probably, from their standpoint, it sounds generous. After all, “different strokes for different folks”—isn’t that in the Bible somewhere? And, in truth, it’s a statement that doesn’t even need to be made: the fact is no one can force anyone to believe what he or she does not want to believe.
But why are they so quick to say what needn’t be said? Just what is this disrespectful gesture they are so loathe to make? Why is there such a fear of appearing to be certain?
In the last few issues of Good News, we’ve been exploring some of the undercurrents of youth culture and the trends that shape the waves and flows negotiated by everyday teenagers. Thus far, we’ve looked at two very important worldviews. 1) Secularism, the removal of sectors of society and culture from the domination of, or exposure to, religious institutions and symbols, and 2) Pluralism, defined by Ravi Zacharias as “the existence and availability of a number of worldviews, each vying for the allegiance of individuals, with no single worldview dominant.”
In this last article in the series, I want to explore a third major undercurrent of youth culture: Privatism.
“Secularization left society without shame and with no point of reference for decency, and pluralization left society without reason and with no point of reference for rationality,” Zacharias writes in Deliver Us from Evil. “Privatization—born from the union of the other two—has left people without meaning and with no point of reference for life’s coherence.”
When we wed secularism and pluralism, the first-born child is privatism, the socially required and legally enforced separation of our private lives from our public lives. What it really boils down to is a mandate that issues of ultimate meaning must be relegated to the sphere of private life. No doubt, this is one of the reasons there has been so much media hand-wringing over President Bush’s open demonstrations of faith.
At first glance, in fact, it seems fair and objective. But, it is a concept hinged on the doubtful assumption that people who are dishonorable and immoral in private will somehow be moral and honorable in public. The irony of this mind-set is that when these same people turn out also to be dishonest and immoral in the public arena, we respond with outrage. We are indignant that politicians lie and disgrace us. We are livid that corporate CEO’s cheat the system and juggle the numbers. And yet, our collective opinion is supposedly that personal morality cannot invade the arena of everyday life. It is a reminder of G.K. Chesterton’s insightful comment: “We laugh at honor, but are shocked when there are thieves in our midst.”
Played out on the stage of everyday teenage life, it looks like what one sociologist called a “quiet faith,” the belief that if one applies any moral conclusions to the lives of others, one is committing an offense of insensitivity, unfairness, and being generally uncool. Most kids reason it out this way: since allowing your moral or religious beliefs to intrude into the arena of public life might offend or exclude another person with different moral or religious beliefs, the appropriate response is self-censorship. Faith and morality simply aren’t talked about in good company. We’ve gone from “I am not ashamed of the gospel....” to “I’m afraid to suggest that the gospel is true because it might make you feel ashamed that you don’t believe it.”
Social critic Jonah Goldberg, describes it this way: “Whatever ideology, religion, cult, belief, creed, fad, hobby, or personal fantasy you like is just fine so long as you don’t impose it on anybody else.…You want to be a Klingon? Great! Attend the Church of Satan? Hey man, if that does it for ya, go for it. You want to be a ‘Buddhist for Jesus’? Sure, mix and match, man; we don’t care. Heck, you can even be an observant Jew, a devout Catholic, a faithful Baptist, or a lifelong heroin addict—they’re all the same.…Just remember: keep it to yourself if you can. Don’t claim that being a Lutheran is any better than being a member of the Hale-Bopp cult, and never use the government to advance your view. If you can do that, then—whatever floats your boat.”
The last of these three cultural climate changes—secularism, pluralism, and privatism—is producing what some consider to be a completely new paradigm of cultural thought. That new paradigm of cultural thinking, postmodernism, will be our focus in the next issue of Good News.
Click here to send your response plus the title of this article to us at Good News.