In my last post, I described the recent attention to young adult faith and religiosity and The Barna Group's "Biblical Worldview" or BWV as I call it. So, what do I think this survey means exactly? Well, the reason I am calling these posts "unChristian Biblical Worldview" is because the set of items that Barna describes approvingly as the BWV seems likely to produce precisely the kinds of Christians that ultimately produce the kinds of responses to Christians described in unchristian. Yet, Barna is promoting their version of the BWV and producing materials designed to nurture and foster it.
unchristian respondents described Christians as hypocritical, insincere and only concerned with converting people, antihomosexual, sheltered, too political, and judgemental. If, as the article cited in my last post suggests, BWV actually results in strong disapproval of various behaviors, then judgemental and antihomosexual make sense. If, as I infer from the same article, BWV results in more disapproval than actual behavioral compliance (the article only lists behavioral compliance on gambling, getting drunk and viewing porn), then hypocritical makes sense too.
A more foundational consideration is the selection of items that constitute the BWV. For instance, why is sharing faith the only behavioral obligation on the BWV list, as opposed to say compassionate interaction with others? The latter has more frequent and consistent Biblical support and would likely result in more sincere interaction, while the former could more easily correlate to an offensive preoccupation with the conversion of others. I'm not arguing that Christians don't have this obligation, but I question whether it is more foundational to a worldview shaped by the Bible than some other obligations. I would have similar questions about the BWV items about the reality of Satan and the sinlessness of Jesus, not because they aren't "Biblical" but because they don't seem as foundational, frequent or pervasive in the Bible itself as say... the sinfulness of human beings or the reality of angels for instance. I might also ask questions about the BWV's association of "truth" with "accuracy" (this is derived from Barna's book Think Like Jesus) but that is for the next post.
One other correlate is crucial to aligning the lists from the BWV and unchristian data. David Kinnaman spoke at a conference at Messiah College (my alma mater and current employer) this past summer. I found him refreshing and winsome. I will say more about his presentation in the next post about the demographic gap and young adults. Kinnaman revealed one piece of data that I have not found anywhere else: He told the audience that 60% of Christians with a BWV also would support a federal amendment declaring Christianity the official religion of the United States!! I think I can safely say that this could be considered a contribution to the "too political" perception of non-Christians in unchristian. The question is whether this makes them (in my opinion) unchristian (supporting a kind of power-grab that seems very contra-Jesus) or un-American (rejecting a fundamental item of the First Amendment).
Since only 19% of those Barna described as "born-again Christians" had a BWV, and in another Barna release, only half of Protestant pastors had a BWV, the BWV clearly cannot be held responsible for the perceptions cited in unchristian, unless Christians with a BWV have a massively disproportionate influence on the general perception of all Christians. We certainly can't blame the Bible, since (it seems to me) the Barna BWV is an odd set of priorities Biblically speaking. What seems possible is: since significantly more pastors do have a BWV, they may be doing a better job at communicating an obligation to disapprove than inculcating the particular Barna BWV.
In my next post I will consider the generation gap in the BWV and the "truth" factor.
A more foundational consideration is the selection of items that constitute the BWV. For instance, why is sharing faith the only behavioral obligation on the BWV list, as opposed to say compassionate interaction with others? The latter has more frequent and consistent Biblical support and would likely result in more sincere interaction, while the former could more easily correlate to an offensive preoccupation with the conversion of others. I'm not arguing that Christians don't have this obligation, but I question whether it is more foundational to a worldview shaped by the Bible than some other obligations. I would have similar questions about the BWV items about the reality of Satan and the sinlessness of Jesus, not because they aren't "Biblical" but because they don't seem as foundational, frequent or pervasive in the Bible itself as say... the sinfulness of human beings or the reality of angels for instance. I might also ask questions about the BWV's association of "truth" with "accuracy" (this is derived from Barna's book Think Like Jesus) but that is for the next post.
One other correlate is crucial to aligning the lists from the BWV and unchristian data. David Kinnaman spoke at a conference at Messiah College (my alma mater and current employer) this past summer. I found him refreshing and winsome. I will say more about his presentation in the next post about the demographic gap and young adults. Kinnaman revealed one piece of data that I have not found anywhere else: He told the audience that 60% of Christians with a BWV also would support a federal amendment declaring Christianity the official religion of the United States!! I think I can safely say that this could be considered a contribution to the "too political" perception of non-Christians in unchristian. The question is whether this makes them (in my opinion) unchristian (supporting a kind of power-grab that seems very contra-Jesus) or un-American (rejecting a fundamental item of the First Amendment).
Since only 19% of those Barna described as "born-again Christians" had a BWV, and in another Barna release, only half of Protestant pastors had a BWV, the BWV clearly cannot be held responsible for the perceptions cited in unchristian, unless Christians with a BWV have a massively disproportionate influence on the general perception of all Christians. We certainly can't blame the Bible, since (it seems to me) the Barna BWV is an odd set of priorities Biblically speaking. What seems possible is: since significantly more pastors do have a BWV, they may be doing a better job at communicating an obligation to disapprove than inculcating the particular Barna BWV.
In my next post I will consider the generation gap in the BWV and the "truth" factor.
RSS Feed
