Since Fridays are now my day off, my wife and I headed for what we hoped would be an enjoyable historical film; “Elizabeth: The Golden Age” starring the outstanding Australian actress Cate Blanchett. At one level we enjoyed the experience. The film is visual eye-candy with period costumes, an exciting sea battle, and lots of pomp and ceremony. Just below the surface, however, lurks the most virulent anti-Catholic and, I believe, anti-Christian movie I have seen in many moons. While Catholics are portrayed as pathologically weird, the real message seems to be that Christianity is THE serious danger to the human desire for freedom.

Yes, Elizabeth is presented as an Anglican Protestant who quietly prays (with great formality) before an altar; but, her real spiritual adviser is an astrologist who lets us know that if the Spanish Armada threatening England is to be defeated it will result from a combination of the fates moving through the weather and Elizabeth’s gumption as a single career woman. Elizabeth’s religion is little more than a thinly veiled tract for religious freedom and stoic resistance to Catholic (read: Christian) oppression. In other words, the message is clear; Christianity is the sinister threat which must be opposed lest we all be enslaved to a spiritual Inquisition.

Critic Stephen Whitty of the Newark Star-Ledger writes that “…this movie equates Catholicism with some sort of horror-movie cult, with scary close-ups of chanting monks and glinting crucifixes.” The Spanish King Philip is portrayed as the most smarmy, wild-eyed, religious nutcase I have ever seen on the silver screen. The producers and director seem to have made absolutely no attempt to be either historically accurate or the least bit fair-minded. For instance, we are told in the opening titles that Philip is a “devout Catholic” who has “plunged Europe into a holy war” and only “England stands against him.” Oh, really. Well, who was Philip making war against? Could it have been the continued Muslim/Turkish expansion in the Mediterranean? What the heck, who needs to reference real history?

This brings me to a little thought-question. What do you think would be the critical reaction to a movie which repeatedly showed a Muslim political leader mumbling fanatical slogans against a Western leader and threatening a holy war with the blessings of all Muslim clerics? You know as well as I do, the critical reaction would be prolonged, vociferous and consistent. Such movie-making would be considered the height of bigotry. Meanwhile, back on Planet Hollywood, you’ll hear the sounds of silence about Elizabeth.

I guess it is no surprise that there is a growing body of information and studies that validate the commonsense observation that people in Western culture are more immature than ever. It seems that even the biologist, Bruce Charlton, professor in the School of Biology at the University of Newcastle in England has joined a growing group of scientists who have identified this phenomenon. There is even new terminology for the new immaturity called psychological neoteny. Charlton notes that because “modern cultures now favor cognitive flexibility; immature people tend to thrive and succeed, and have set the tone not only for contemporary life, but also for the future.” Welcome to the brave new world of Paris Hilton and Brittney Spears.

Charlton adds that the faults of youth are retained well into adulthood and these include, “short attention span, sensation and novelty-seeking, short cycles of arbitrary fashion and a sense of cultural shallowness.” In studies done with a cross-section of society, Charlton and others have discovered that this immaturity is most common with “highly educated” people. He notes, “People such as academics, teachers, scientists and many other professionals are often strikingly immature outside of their strictly specialist competence in the sense of being unpredictable, unbalanced in priorities, and tending to overreact.” (http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2006/06/23/immature_hum.html?category=human&guid=20060623110030)

Scientists, of course, are not the first people to observe that immaturity is spiraling out of control. Diana West, a columnist for the Washington Times, has written a provocative book titled, “The Death of the Grown-up: How America's Arrested Development Is Bringing Down Western Civilization.” She takes a look at the larger impact of the prolonged adolescence of adults in the West. She believes that immature thinking has led to a political correctness which cannot be “judgmental” and identify bad ideas as simply “bad.” This has left the West vulnerable to the “insidious Islamization of culture” because immature people cannot allow themselves to recognize the “dehumanizing ideology” of radical Islam. Americans, West notes, have largely rejected the time-honored notions of adulthood (i.e. modesty, self-discipline and respect for authority) and have instead embraced cultural decadence and inclusiveness. This she terms the “culture of perpetual adolescence.” Perpetual adolescence has eroded Western cultural identity and, hence, our ability to marshal the adequate resolve to defend our own civilization.

A case in point that West offers of our perpetual adolescence is what she terms “red-light district parenting.” Most cities have red-light districts where prostitution is contained by police authorities. Usually the police believe that while prostitution is detrimental to public health and the moral fabric of a community, they also believe that it can only be contained and not eradicated. Red-light district parenting does something similar. Immature-thinking parents believe that they can only contain their children’s unlawful and dangerous behavior. Therefore, they are the parents that allow drinking (alcohol) parties at their homes or purchase limousines, condoms and hotel rooms for “grad night” so that their children can drink, have promiscuous sex and party the night away “safely.” Such parents, West notes, are “parents who need parents.”

Proverbs 22:15 Folly is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline will drive it far from him.
Proverbs 29:15 The rod of correction imparts wisdom, but a child left to himself disgraces his mother.

Okay, this post is my attempt at a little editorializing about what is called “church growth” amongst Evangelicals.

Here is the issue. There is a lot of talk about how post-modern young adults (18-35 year olds) do not relate with Evangelical churches as they currently do their ministry. The forms, the style and the priorities of traditional and even contemporary churches must, therefore, change in order to avoid extinction. A typical example of this talk can be found in an article for the Kentucky Baptist Convention titled “Church Must Radically Change to Reach Future Generations.” It presents the thoughts of Reggie McNeal, director of the Leadership Development Office at the South Carolina Baptist Convention. Here is a portion of the article:

“However, since post-moderns begin their thoughts with a connection to God, McNeal says churches will have to approach them much differently…McNeal says. “They’re not going to become institutional church people. If you’ve read (George) Barna’s latest book (Revolution), you know that church attendance is going to fall in half over the next 20 years. A lot of them are going to be these younger people who don’t express their spirituality through the institutional church.”

I should let you know that I have a serious problem with many of George Barna’s statistics and conclusions. I have noticed that invariably those who are calling for a “radical” change in the way that the church does ministry refer to Barna. I think Barna has an axe to grind; but, that is a subject for a different post.

You’ve probably surmised at this point that I think the idea that post-moderns can no longer relate to the church is a bunch of hooey. The reality is that the so-called disaffection of post-moderns is simply a life-stage issue for 18-22 year olds. If you would like to check out an in-depth analysis of why 18-22 year olds drop out of church you can refer to Lifeway Research’s excellent study: http://www.slideshare.net/daverudd/church-dropouts-faces-of-young-adults-ages-1822/

What you will find is that the majority of 18-22 year olds who drop out eventually return to the church. They return for the following reasons. 39% return because their parents or a family member encourages them. Another 34% return simply because they desire to and 24% return because “I had children and felt it was time for them to start attending.” I think this all comes under the rubric of “growing up.”

Now let me make it more personal. From the perspective of a “with-it, hip, post-modern pastor,” I am a fossil. I’m nearing 60, I write articles about medieval theology and I think most of the stuff that is jabbered about post-modernism is goofy. I am, perhaps, one of the least likely candidates to be able to reach 18-35 year olds. Yet, I believe my church does exactly this “with a vengeance.” How, you ask. Simple, we do great children’s and youth ministry.

Here is the deal. When so-called post-modern 18-22 year olds wake up one day and realize that they have a career, a mortgage, a spouse and a child in diapers, they come to their senses. Now they are suddenly interested in church—for their kids. And believe-you-me they want the cleanest, brightest, finest and most wonderful nursery or Sunday school they can find for their precious little one. Young adults may go to a church because it is a paragon of post-modernist worship with a hip pastor wearing jeans; but, they stay at a church because their kids like the children’s ministries.

I’ve shared this insight with young pastors from all over the nation but most of them prefer to ignore my advice and to attempt to be trendy. Meanwhile we keep expanding our nursery and building more facilities to accommodate our children’s and youth ministries.

Here is a very interesting scripture:

1 Timothy 6: 17-19 Command those who are rich in this present age not to be haughty, nor to trust in uncertain riches but in the living God, who gives us richly all things to enjoy. 18 Let them do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to give, willing to share, 19 storing up for themselves a good foundation for the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life.

What is striking about this passage is that Paul does not condemn the rich, but he gives them instructions for the use of their wealth. This is a far cry from the error of a group known as the Apostolics that Augustine wrote about in his book “On Heresies.” He says that they, “most arrogantly call themselves Apostolics, because they refuse to accept into their communion those who practice marriage, and who possess goods of their own…” Of course, there have been many others down through church history who have believed that it is wrong to own one’s own goods or that it is wrong to be rich. Typically I have noticed that college-aged Christians in their imprudent idealism tend to believe that rich Christians are in some way ungodly or corrupt. I’ve also noticed that as they get married and advance in their careers, young people tend to change their ideology.

The central point I am making is that just as the use of food and our sexual capacities is not illicit in itself, but is only illicit when it violates God’s law, it is likewise the same with wealth. External possessions (what we call wealth) are necessary for human survival. We need them to support ourselves, for the upbringing of our children, and to provide for our daily food. We cannot escape this. Either we take care of our own needs or someone will have to do it for us. It follows therefore that the possession of wealth cannot be illicit in itself. What makes the possession of wealth illicit is when a man does not justly handle what he has. According to Paul, a man must not set the end of his will in wealth (“…nor to trust in uncertain riches…”). Rather, he must set the end of his will in God (“…but in the living God,”). Additionally, a man must use his wealth in a proper way for both the benefit of his family and others. This is why Paul says that the rich are to be “rich in good works, ready to give, willing to share.”

You’ve probably seen the cartoon of the guy who climbs to the top of a remote mountain to ask a bearded guru the purpose of life. The punch line of the cartoon varies but the point is that there must be some purpose to life that a few wise men have discovered. Christians usually note that the purpose of life can be found in Scripture even though there seems to be a lot of disagreement as to what exactly the Bible says regarding man’s purpose. Rick Warren, though, has sold millions of books based upon his “Purpose-Driven Life” concept. As he sees it, man has five basic biblical purposes. The Westminster Confession states man’s purpose more simply as “Man's chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.” This is similar to the Catholic idea of the Beatific Vision (beholding God in Heaven); which, is not too different from the Eastern Orthodox conception of deification (to be perfectly conformed with, and united to, the divine).

All of these Christian conceptions of man’s purpose, despite their similarities, have subtle differences. Identifying and understanding these differences can be very helpful as a way of grasping the fullness of God’s purpose for man. That being said, I would like to put in a plug for what I consider to be one of the finest summary statements about man’s purpose. As you can imagine, it comes from Thomas Aquinas. Yes, I know he is famous for defining the content of the Beatific Vision. But, check this out:

“The perfection of the human soul, however, consists in a certain abstraction from the body. For the soul is perfected by knowledge and virtue, and it is perfected in knowledge the more it considers immaterial things, the perfection of virtue consists man’s not submitting to the passions of the body, but moderating and controlling them in accordance with reason.” (SCG II: Creation, Ch. 78, 3)

Thomas’ statement is a somewhat more practical and less theological description of man’s purpose. He is describing the roadmap to glorifying God or reaching the Beatific Vision. As he sees it, the ultimate perfection of man has a lot to do with an “abstraction” from the body. Put another way, this means that man must focus his attention on higher things rather than bodily functions. This makes complete sense if you think man is more than a mere animal. The two higher things that man should focus upon are knowledge and virtue.

Specifically, the knowledge that Thomas recommends is of “immaterial things.” For example, he means that it is better for man’s purpose that he studies the principles or laws of nature rather than simply the individual workings of natural things such as trees. Studying trees is a good thing; but, going beyond the study of trees to discern the laws of nature and of nature’s God is a higher good. These are the immaterial things that sustain the natural world. By considering these things, Thomas believes that man perfects one of his highest faculties—his intellect.

The second way that man fulfills his purpose is by perfecting virtue. Virtue can be understood as excellence. For instance, the virtue of a knife is its sharp cutting edge. If a knife’s edge is sharp we say it is a good knife but if it is dull we usually say it is a poor or bad knife. The excellence of man is to use his highest faculties at their optimum level. Therefore, a virtuous life does not consist in expending man’s efforts on fulfilling all of his bodily sensations. Any animal can do this. In fact, animals often show more self-restraint in regard to their bodily sensations than do men. Thomas proposes that the excellent use of man’s bodily sensations and passions is to control and moderate them so that he can direct his life by reason rather than “feelings” or his desires. A virtuous life is one where a man appropriately controls his passions for a higher purpose other than pleasure-seeking. By doing this, man perfects his will. By the way, Thomas is not opposed to pleasure; he is just opposed to a pleasure-centered life.

There you have it; the roadmap to man’s highest purpose is to consider the highest immaterial things and to guide one’s passions in an excellent or optimal way. As a general roadmap, I think Thomas’ insights fit nicely into all the major Christian traditions albeit Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox.