Soul Searching, Part 9- Moralistic Thereapuetic Deism and the Collapse of the Church in America

Perhaps the most alarming and also the most honest section of the book Soul Searching is the one that contains these passages:

In short, our teen interview transcripts reveal clearly that the language that dominates US adolescent interests and thinking about life, including religious and spiritual life, is primarily about personally feeling good and being happy. That is what defines the dominant epistemological framework and evaluative standard for most contemporary US teenagers- and probably for most of their baby boomer parents. This, we think, has major implications for religious faiths seriously attempting to pass on the established beliefs and practices of their historical traditions.- p. 168.


We have come with some confidence to believe that a significant part of Christianity in the United States is actually only tenuously Christian in any sense that is seriously connected to the actual historical Christian tradition, but has rather substantially morphed into Christianity's misbegotten step-cousin, Christian Moralistic Therapeutic Deism. This has happened in the minds and hearts of many individual believers and, it also appears, within the structures of at least some Christian organizations and institutions. The language, and therefore experience, of Trinity, holiness, sin, grace, justification, sanctification, church, Eucharist, and heaven and hell appear, among most Christian teenagers in the United States at the very least, to be supplanted by the language of happiness, niceness, and an earned heavenly reward. It is not so much that US Christianity is being secularized. Rather, more subtly, Christianity is either degenerating into a pathetic version of itself or, more significantly, Christianity is actively being colonized and displaced by a quite different religious faith.- p. 171.

A few thoughts in response to this: My last post covered a good bit of the themes related to these issues, so no need to rehash everything here. Suffice it to say my assessment of Christianity in America is not too different from this one.

Thinking in some more blatantly philosophical terms, I think what we are seeing here is an effect of Enlightenment/Modernistic thinking that resounded so well with American individualism. This philosophical thinking attempted to exalt the abilities of man to solve all of life's problems through concrete and scientific means. This optimistic, triumphant spirit is very prevalent in American thought where it was embodied in the individualistic spirit of the American dream. However, most of the philosophical claims of this movement have been abandoned because of logical problems and because of the experience of the 21st century. This is much more obvious in Europe- it is hard to tell a continent that still remembers vividly the destruction of two world wars and the tenseness of the Cold War that mankind is getting better and our problems are being solved. However, the optimism of Modernism has also given way in United States to a variety of Post-Modern philosophies.

Here is what makes this all relevant to our discussion- Modernism is built on the concrete- science and engineering are the golden occupations of Modernism because the belief is that through these mechanisms all the answers that can be answered and all the problems that can be solved will be. The "can be" is important- purely abstract things- like morality, religion, etc.- these things cannot be solved according to modernistic thinking. So we have to either be skeptics or relativists about questions regarding religion or morality. Post-Modernism is often considered more radically relativistic. I am of the persuasion, however, that a positive post-modern philosophy that does not result in a radical relativism is possible (and maybe someday I will write out something that outlines such a philosophy… probably not, but lets be optimistic). This skepticism/relativism however leads to a variety of systems of morality (and religion) that attempt to provide some sort of moral guidance without making absolute claims. Typically, the guiding principle for these systems is "whatever makes you happy" or "whatever you feel is best." These systems are very much rooted in emotions and the immediate satisfaction of our desires. Is it any wonder, then, that our churches have begun to teach the same, even if it is couched in more religious terms? Far too often we hear that following God will make you rich or that following God is the key to happiness. Godliness the is the key to a successful marriage (it no doubt plays a part, but I know plenty of non-believers with more successful marriages than most of the believers I know). Godliness is the key to satisfaction at work (I never found this to be true when I was working in the food business…). And what is Godliness anyway? It gets defined in terms of jumping through some religious hoops- reading the word and praying everyday, attending church regularly, etc.- all things that ensure that people who work in ministry (like I do) have jobs. Now, no doubt all of those things are beneficial. And no doubt godliness is beneficial. But is that our motivation for doing these things? For a religion that claims in most of its literature that selfishness is wrong and immoral, this whole scheme sounds very selfish!

One final consideration concerning the implications for all of this for our church leadership and global missions. There are two conflicting phenomena going on in the global church. First, the dominant presence of the church in the West is shrinking while the presence of the church in non-Western parts of the world is exploding. Second, the leadership of the church is still overwhelmingly Western. In part this is natural- the West has existing leadership structures that have yet to be built in the developing parts of the world. However, it is also worrisome. Particularly among American missionaries who attempt to provide leadership to other parts of the Christian world, I get the strong impression that there is an attempt to export American modes of thinking to these regions. Given everything we have said already about the cultural inconsistencies between what should be proper Christian doctrine and the popular American conception of faith, this should set off a lot of alarm bells. Somehow as we educate and teach other cultures to follow Christ, we need to keep in mind that we have not exactly done this well ourselves and that we do not need to teach them to repeat our mistakes but instead to learn from them and avoid them.

Soul Searching, Part 8- Consumerism and the Church in America

More on the damaging effects of individualism taken too far in America:

Most US youth tend to assume an instrumental view of religion. Most instinctively suppose that religion exists to help individuals be and do what they want, and not as an external authority or divinity that makes compelling claims and demands on their lives, especially to change or grow in ways they may not immediately want to. For most US teenagers, religion is something to personally believe in that makes one feel good and resolves one's problems. For most, it is not an entire way of life or a disciplined practice that makes hard demands of or changes people. Stated differently, for many US teenagers, God is treated as something like a cosmic therapist or counselor, a ready and competent helper who responds in times of trouble but who does not particularly ask for devotion or obedience… This instrumental view of religion is not the invention of teenagers. It seems to be a dominating image of religion embraced by many adults in the United States.- pp. 147-148.

The rugged individualism that drives the "American Dream"- the quest for greatness through individual accomplishment that so dominates most of American culture seems to have a more deep effect on American religion than just promoting an attitude of self-service rather than collective involvement. It also seems to alter some very foundational concepts, such as the relationship between God and man. Traditionally in the Judeo-Christian religion, this relationship has been likened to that between a King and his subjects. We do not "use" God, we serve him. We do not really have a choice in that matter, either- God demands our allegiance as a King demands the allegiance of his subjects and if we do not grant it to him, then trouble ensues for us. That has been how this has normally been understood. It is interesting to note two periods where such an understanding did not occur and the revolutionary results that occurred on both those occasions.

The first is in the first century AD. In the period leading up to this, Jewish thought had developed away from the notion that they must serve God as his subjects and instead begun to develop the notion that by jumping through certain hoops, they could in fact guarantee that God would do certain things for them- in essence promoting the manipulation of God for their own good. Along came Jesus and later one of his apostles Paul. In what we hear from both of these early Christian leaders we see a radical challenge to this mindset. Both find themselves executed largely at Jewish prodding for advancing the notion that God's sovereignty demands our allegiance and that ritual cannot manipulate God into performing acts on our behalf. We receive things from God because he intends to give them to us as part of furthering his plan, a plan for which we are also working if we are his servants. This was lost in first century Judaism, and the result is a radical split of the people of God with the church being forced to break away from its mother institution- Judaism.

The second incident happens at the Protestant Reformation. Catholic theology has at this point made the same mistake as did Jewish theology in the first century. They have proposed a series of rituals by which "purgatory" can be escaped and salvation secured. Again, we see a manipulation of God going on in Church ritual. In response to this come the Reformers who demand that we once again recognize that salvation comes by the will of God alone and is for his purposes, not our own selfish interest. Again, the sovereignty of God had been supplanted by the will of man, and again a radical transformation in the thought patterns of the church had to take place.

Now for those of you who know my personal theological leanings this all may sound a bit out of step. I'm sounding very Calvinistic today, and I will have to write another post later that somehow squares all of this with what I also believe to be true- that we as people have free will. That is for another post, however.

The main point of this post is this- I am afraid a similar error is at work in our churches today, at least in America. The individualism and consumerism (which is just a working out of individualism in economic terms) of our culture have been applied to our religious values. Just as we can pick and choose what suits us in a super-market, so we can pick and choose what suits us in the church. If I don't like the preacher at this church, I go down the street and join that one. If the music isn't quite up to par, I just go off to another church where they have hired a professional band to wow them with their music finesse. Especially among denominations (or non-denominations) where individual churches stand on their own (this is primarily Baptist churches) this phenomenon means that the survival of the church in large part depends on its ability to draw a crowd. So mega-churches thrive and small-town churches die out. And to thrive mega-churches alter their teaching and style to suit the "needs" (read "whimsical desires") of their congregants. The real result of this in terms of theology has been, in my experience, the idea that salvation is accomplished simply by saying a little prayer to ask Jesus to live inside you and then you are guaranteed a spot in heaven no matter what happens the rest of your life. To be frank, this whole concept is heretical and has probably sent more souls to hell in America than any other lie that has seeped into our churches. Yes, salvation is the free gift of God to man. But the God who paid a high price to accomplish this salvation does not expect for his gift to be trampled by those who just want a ticket to paradise but can't afford a cruise in the Caribbean. He expects for the gravity of what he has accomplished on our behalf to inspire a life of service to him, a life engaged in winning back the world that has fallen to sin and restoring creation to how it should be. What we have done and are doing in America is attempting to manipulate God for our own purposes. I don't think such an exercise can continue, there is going to have to be a "reformation" of some sort that occurs in the American church as well.

Soul Searching, Part 7- Individualism And Understanding Wider Relationships

This section of the book Soul Searching: The Religious and Spiritual Lives of American Teenagers is remarkable to me:

American youth, like American adults, are nearly without exception profoundly individualistic, instinctively presuming autonomous, individual self-direction to be a universal human norm and life goal. Thoroughgoing individualism is not a contested orthodoxy for teenagers. It is an invisible and pervasive doxa, that is, an unrecognized, unquestioned, invisible premise or presupposition… most US teenagers are at least somewhat allergic to anything they view as trying to influence them. They generally view themselves as autonomous mediators or arbitrators of all outside influences; it is they themselves who finally influence their own lives… This autonomous individualism, not incidentally, helps to explain why teens have such difficulty articulating how religion influences them. They have difficulty imaging how religion influences their lives because they tend to imagine that nothing influences them, at least without their final choice that it does so. The idea that one's life is being formed and transformed by the power of a historical religious tradition can be nearly incomprehensible to people who have allergies to outside influences. Such a perspective lends itself instead to thinking of religion as something one chooses to use… not something to which one devotes oneself or gives away one's life. -pp. 143-144.

This aspect of American culture has continually baffled me. From the standpoint of one who has spent a good amount of time studying the history of philosophical ideas, it amazes me how dependent American thought is on the Renaissance humanists of Italy and Germany in the fifteenth century and on the British liberal philosophers of the seventeenth and eighteenth century such as John Locke and Adam Smith. And while I appreciate the impact of all of these great thinkers- it is certainly a benefit that individual rights have come to be regarded as undeniable in Western culture and that tyranny has been all but eradicated in the West in the name of protecting those rights- it is interesting to see how American culture in particular has taken all these ideas to an extreme that is not present anywhere else in the world. My family has strong ties to the UK and I have friends scattered around Europe. As "Democratized" as those countries are, they are also all very "collectivistic" in their political and social outlooks. Policies on everything from economics to foreign affairs to social norms are set from the standpoint of what is best for the nation as a whole (frequently with a utilitarian ring, this is true, but still the idea of collective responsibility is very prominent in European thinking and politics). This is why it shocks Europeans that America does not have a national health-care system.

America was founded as a series of colonies mostly populated by people who couldn't make it in the Old World and so came here to start anew and hit it big. Most of America's history consists of movement to the frontier where this same mentality of a new opportunity to be successful drew settlers. Its interesting to note that is predominantly the major costal cities that were populated and industrialized earliest where the "liberal" ideas of "European Socialism" have taken the most root. It is the still-growing interior parts of American where "conservative" (where conservative means, in fact, the classical liberal ideas of the European Enlightenment) ideals still dominate and where individualism is most apparent (though its definitely still apparent in the costal cities as well). The overwhelming American mentality since its inception has been that success means growth which means you have to work as hard as you can to make more money than you already do to have a more "comfortable" existence than you do now (where comfortable means having more stuff that you cannot use because you are constantly working to acquire more). Ok, I'm exaggerating a little, but this is definitely the stereo-type and it is one that is true more often than not. There is a story I heard of some American businessmen who were visiting Brazil and saw some fisherman napping in their boat just off shore. "What are you doing?" they asked. "Relaxing" was the answer. "Shouldn't you be working?" "Why would we do that?" "Well, you could make more money then." "What for?" "So you could buy more equipment and make even more money." "What for?" "So you could hire some other people to fish for you and then you could just sit around and relax." "Well that's what we are doing now…" The point of this whole diatribe is merely this: The American dream is unsustainable. Success is not measured in material goods but in the quality of life lived with what you have. And quality is not a material term either, it’s a relational and a spiritual one. Better to die with little but the appreciation and respect of many than to die filthy rich but unknown and unloved.

To come back to the real point of this entire post- the individualism that so dominates our culture is a double-edged sword. It robs us of a sense of who we are in relation to the rest of the world. And it quite frequently robs us of a greater quality of life that would be lived if we would just slow down a bit and relax and enjoy what we already have. The first of these is especially important- without a sense of who we are and where we come from, we tend to think that our life is just lived in a void. The typical American mentality is to say "I am alive for an amount of time that is, in the big scheme of things, insignificant. So if I want my life to be significant, I have to be hugely successful." Yet, such a mentality forgets that we are not living in a vacuum. We are part of an entity larger than ourselves- our culture, our religious tradition, our nation, our world, etc. Significance to our individual life doesn't have to depend on carving out an individual name for ourselves. It can just as easily come from continuing the movement of which we are a part, from furthering causes that are not solely ours but which we are part of. We accomplish more together than separately. But to work together, we have to understand who we are in relation to each other. And this involves recognizing the influences that have shaped all of us- the common history we share just as much as it does recognizing the individual strengths and weaknesses that we bring to the table.

Soul Searching, Part 6- Religious Inarticulancy and Language Learning

Thus far the evidence we have considered from the book Soul Searching: The Religious and Spiritual Lives of American Teenagers has painted a fairly positive picture of the attitude of teenagers toward religion. However, now that we begin to examine their personal religious beliefs, what quickly becomes apparent is that while they may generally consider religion a good and beneficial thing, their understanding of it in their own lives lacks a great deal of substance. Not long ago I showed a video by NT Wright to my youth. The title was "An Evening With NT Wright: Learning the Language of Virtue" or something close to that. Excellent video if you're curious, I found it on the I-Tunes store and downloaded it for free. As I've been reading this book, I've been reminded of that video. Two sections to consider:

Again, nobody expects adolescents to be sophisticated theologians. But very few of the descriptions of personal beliefs offered by the teenagers we interviewed, especially the Christian teenagers, come close to representing marginally coherent accounts of the basic, important religious beliefs of their own faith traditions. The majority of US teens would badly fail a hypothetical short-answer or essay test of the basic beliefs of their religion… Most teenagers held religious beliefs that, judged by their own religion's standards, were often trivial, misguided, distorted, and sometimes outright doctrinally erroneous. The point here is not that US teenagers are dumb or deplorable. They are not. The point is simply that understanding and embracing the right religious faith and belief according to their religions does not appear to be a priority in the lives of most US adolescents- and perhaps many of their parents. Faith is usually just there, around somewhere, and most teens do believe something religious or other. But religion simply doesn't seem consequential enough to most teenagers to pay close attention to and get right. Rather, most teens seem content to live with a low-visibility religion that operates somewhere in the mental background of their lives. -p. 137.


We do not believe that teenage inarticulacy about religious matters reflects any general teen incapacity to think and speak well. Many of the youth we interviewed were quite conversant when it came to their views on salient issues in their lives about which they had been educated and had practice discussing, such as the dangers of drug abuse and STDs. Rather, our impression as interviewers was that many teenagers could not articulate matters of faith because they have not been effectively educated in and provided opportunities to practice talking about their faith. Indeed, it was our distinct sense that for many of the teens we interviewed, our interview was the first time that any adult had ever asked them what they believed and how it mattered in their life. Very many seemed caught off-balance by our simple questions, uncertain about what we were asking, at a loss to know how to respond. It was clear that, for many teens, very little in their lives had prepared them to be able to explain, even in basic terms, what they believe and how that fits into their lives… Religious language is like any other language: to learn how to speak it, one needs first to listen to native speakers using it a lot, and then one needs plenty of practice at speaking it oneself. Many US teenagers, it appears, are not getting a significant amount of such exposure and practice and so are simply not learning the religious language of their faith tradition. - p. 133.

In my own experience as a youth director, I have discovered that the fastest and most effective way to get my youth quiet is to ask a question. No one wants to answer, no one wants to speak. Which is unfortunate… And not just on the level of making lessons sometimes momentarily awkward, but because it is going to make it harder for these teens to evaluate the claims they will be exposed to later in life that compete with and even contradict the beliefs they supposedly hold to as Christians. If I can encourage anything in my youth, it is that I want them to be comfortable (hopefully fluent, but I'll settle for comfortable if I can't get them there) at discussing what they think and believe about very important matters of their faith and spiritual life.

Soul Searching, Part 5- A Balancing Act

While much of the evidence considered thus far in the book Soul Searching presents a very positive image of the attitudes of teenagers towards religion, there are limitations. Almost all teens have a negative perception of people who are "too" religious that they want to avoid. This idea probably coincides with the popular stereotypes of fundamentalists who's entire life is based around a literal reading of certain misinterpreted passages of scripture (taken from the original manuscripts themselves as recorded by King James in 1611, no doubt). However, in attempting to avoid this stereotype many teens therefore push religion to the background of their lives and downgrade its importance. Somewhere there is a balance to be found. My personal opinion is that this balance will be easier to achieve when we in the more conservative elements of Christianity become willing to actually engage and confront the "challenging" aspects of our faith that are so often submerged underneath fundamentalist rhetoric. A more open-minded faith makes it easier to acknowledge the importance of faith in our lives and at the same time avoid drinking the cool-aide.

Soul Searching, Part 4- Social Factors and Stereotypes

One thing that is remarkable to notice is the correlation of certain familial and social factors with different religious attitudes among American teenagers. Consistently, the survey results discussed in the book Soul Searching indicate a correlation between teens who are considered religiously "disengaged" or "seeking" with what we generally consider negative social and familial factors- single-parent families, low social standing/confidence, bad relationships with their parents, etc. And consistently teens who are identified as religiously active or involved are correlated with positive social and familial factors- very understanding/sympathetic parental relationships, high social standing/confidence, etc. Correlation does not equal causation, so we have to be careful what conclusions we draw here. And certainly these correlations are not exact- one set of factors does not guarantee a certain religious attitude. However, these numbers do seem to counter a good many media stereotypes about the "backwards" nature of religious families.

Soul Searching, Part 3- Interesting Indicators

The survey results in the book Soul Searching are broken down by national average and by particular religious traditions. As we've already noted in a previous post, these particular numbers are very helpful in assessing the mindset (and corresponding strengths and weaknesses) of these particular traditions. For two traditions, the numbers are remarkable and very revealing.

The first of these are Mormon teens. The first indication of something remarkable comes when asking about the similarity of the beliefs of the teen to that of their parents. This question was asked on a scale of "very similar, somewhat similar, somewhat different, and very different." Most people do not choose an extreme on a question such as this, but the large majority of teens chose one of the two options marked similar. However, for Mormon teens, they overwhelmingly indicated that their beliefs were "very similar" to that of their parents- almost double the national average! Mormon teens also attend far more religious activities than do other teens and reported at a rate almost four times the national average that their families discuss religion on a daily basis! This over-abundance of exposure to their own beliefs, however, seems to only have a limited effectiveness. When asked if they believe in God, Mormon teens reporting a positive answer drops to a lower number than any other tradition except non-religious teens and Judaism. Further, Mormon teens are the most likely to be uncertain in their beliefs about what God is like. I don't want to exaggerate these later numbers. Mormon teens believe in God at exactly the national average and are only slightly more confused about their understanding of who God is. However, given the over-abundance of their exposure to their belief system, we would expect these numbers to be much higher. The fact that they are not raises doubts about the effectiveness of Mormon teaching and suspicions about the character of Mormon thought.

The second group to consider are Jewish teens. Overall these numbers reveal a remarkable apathy and pessimism about the character of their faith. Jewish teens are the least likely to believe in God, the most likely to believe that if God exists, he is not a personal being, and the most uncertain about the character of many of their other theological beliefs. Jewish teens show the least commitment to or involvement in their faith. Overwhelmingly, Jewish teens report that they are the least likely to continue to attend any sort of religious congregation when they are older. Such numbers seem to display a pessimistic and agnostic attitude about their own faith that has resulted in a general disconnect from Jewish teens with their own religious heritage. In a sense this is not surprising- if any belief system has suffered it is the Jewish system- from the exiles of Biblical times to the destruction of Jerusalem in the first century to the persecutions that have rocked the Jewish people even into our own recent memory. It seems that such radical opposition to their faith has taken a toll in terms of the connection of the Jewish people to their belief system.

Soul Searching, Part 2- The Influence of Parents, Other Adults, And Relationships

A handful of interesting passages from the book Soul Searching: The Religious and Spiritual Lives of American Teenagers by Christian Smith and Melinda Lundquist Denton:

One of the key themes of this book is that parents are normally very important in shaping the religious and spiritual lives of their teenage children, even though they may not realize it. It seems that many parents of teens rely primarily on the immediate evidence of the overt attitudes, statements, and sometimes behaviors that their teenage children dole out to them on a daily basis in order to estimate their current level of parental influence. Many of the attitudes and statements that teenagers communicate to their parents do not exactly express great admiration and gratitude for and readiness to listen to, emulate, or freely obey their parents. Many parents therefore appear to come to the conclusion that they have lost their influence in shaping the lives of their teenage children, that they no longer make any significant difference. But for most, this conclusion is mistaken. Teenagers' attitudes, verbal utterances, and immediate behaviors are often not the best evidence with which to estimate parental influence in their lives. For better or worse, most parents in fact still do profoundly influence their adolescents- more often than do their peers- their children's apparent resistance and lack of appreciation notwithstanding. This influence often also includes parental influence in adolescents' religious and spiritual lives. Simply by living and interacting with their children, most parents establish expectations, define normalcy, model life practices, set boundaries, and make demands- all of which cannot help but influence teenagers, for good or ill. Most teenagers and their parents may not realize it, but a lot of research in the sociology of religion suggests that the most important social influence in shaping young people's religious lives is the religious life modeled and taught to them by their parents.

- p. 56

Parents for whom faith is quite important are thus likely to be raising teenagers for whom faith is quite important, while parents whose faith is not important are likely to be raising teenagers for whom faith is also not important. The fit is not perfect. None of this is guaranteed or determined, and sometimes, in specific instances, things turn out otherwise. But overall positive association is clear… In sum, therefore, we think that the best general rule of thumb that parents might use to reckon their children's most likely religious outcomes is this: "We'll get what we are."

- p. 57

Large majorities of teens from all religious traditions report having nonfamily adults in their religious congregations whom they enjoy talking to and who give them lots of encouragement… The majority of teens who do not have such enjoyable and encouraging adult ties in their congregations… say that they wish they did… Religious organizations thus appear to help foster cross-generational relational ties for large numbers of US teenagers, ties we would expect to help legitimize and reinforce the religious faith and practices of those teens.

- pp. 60-61

Religious faith and practice in American teenagers' lives operate in a social and institutional environment that is highly competitive for time, attention, and energy. Religious interests and values in teens' lives typically compete against those of school, homework, television, other media, sports, romantic relationships, paid work, and more. Indeed, in many adolescents' lives, religion occupies a quite weak and often losing position among these competing influences. Those teenagers for whom religious faith and practice are important tend to have religious lives constructed relationally and institutionally to intersect and overlap with other important aspects of their lives… For American adolescents more broadly, the structure of relational networks and institutional ties of both teens and their parents seems significantly correlated with the character of their religious faith and practice.

-p. 28

Religious and nonreligious identities thus tend to cluster around and be reinforced by close friendship networks… Again, religion in the lives of teenagers appears to be not simply restricted to time spent in religious congregations, but also flows in various ways and to different degrees into and through teens' relational networks.

-p. 58


All Quotations taken from Soul Searching: The Religious and Spiritual Lives of American Teenagers, Christian Smith with Melinda Lundquist Denton, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005).

Soul Searching, Part I- Balancing Conservative and Mainline Emphasis

For Christmas I was given a copy of the book Soul Searching: The Religious and Spiritual Lives of American Teenagers by Christian Smith and Melinda Lundquist Denton. The book is an assessment of the data compiled in an extensive study by the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill into the spiritual lives of American adolescents, and thus far it has definitely been good food for thought. I'm going to blog my way through this book a bit commenting on some interesting features. As an interesting side note, I also noticed today this poll about the religious beliefs of American in general.

I just finished reading one of the opening chapters which provides a basic overview of the data collected. The focus of the book is on all religious experience, but my particular interest as a youth director is the data concerning Conservative and Mainline Protestants. The church that I am part of is from a mainline denomination, but perhaps has a more conservative bent than many other churches in the denomination. The data collected shows some interesting divergences between the way teens view religion in these two camps that are somewhat enlightening for my experience.

First, there are some indications that teens from more "mainline" denominations feel less "spiritually vital." They are less likely to report feeling "close" to God than teens from conservative circles, significantly less likely to report feeling as though they have had a "spiritual experience," less likely to take part in "Bible studies" or "prayer groups," less active in spiritual disciplines such as prayer, less likely to strictly adhere to traditional Christian beliefs (such as the existence of angels or demons), and more likely to adopt non-traditional, occultic beliefs (such as reincarnation or communication with the dead). I don't want to exaggerate this- on a whole both conservative and mainline teens report pretty strong signs of spiritual vitality. However, this seems significantly more true of teens from a conservative background.

However, there are other signs that should make us cautious of fully embracing the conservative climate uncritically. Mainline teens are much more involved in "traditional" manifestations of the Christian faith- they are much more involved in Christian ceremonies and liturgy and much more likely to have participated in the sacraments (including public baptism). These historic aspects of the Christian experience are, it would seem, stressed much less in conservative circles, which is a somewhat ironic finding.

In terms of relationships there seems to also be a bit of a difference- Conservatives have more of a focus on the family relationship, are more prone to embracing a "Christian sub-culture" (with things such as listening to Christian music, going to Christian camps, etc.), and are more open or public in talking about their faith. More mainline Protestants tend to have more of a community focused relationship- more teens from these circles indicated that they had worked to restore a broken relationship, that they felt comfortable talking to adults in the church who were not their parents, and more teens from these communities report that they have approached their ministers for advice about serious issues in their lives. Ironically, perhaps, it is also the case that more teens from mainline denominations are willing to be critical of the adults in their churches and call them hypocritical (but still less than 10% of them say that a large portion of the adults in their church are hypocritical). Perhaps this is an indication that more involved relationships are more revealing of those adults who are authentic in what they believe.

My assessment is that there needs to be a balance here. Conservatives bring to the table a stronger emphasis on an active personal spiritual life. However, mainline groups are better at realizing that the personal spiritual life of an individual is only part of the story- there is also a significant communal aspect to the Christian faith- one that is embodied in community relationships and in partaking in traditional Christian expressions of the faith (such as the sacraments and liturgy). So as a youth director and a leader in a church that already attempts to balance these two camps, I need to set two equally important objectives: First, to foster personal spiritual growth in my youth. Second, to encourage community relationships not just among my youth but between my youth and the wider church they are a part of.