Blogotional

Michael Gerson notes some rather alarming statistics about the sexual behavior of teens in churchs of different sorts. The fact of the matter is church is helping, but not all that much. Says Gerson:

The facts also support a basic conservative belief: that it is difficult for teens to be moral alone. Wilcox argues that teen sexual behavior can be influenced -- that teenagers can be more than the sum of their hormones. But responsible behavior requires both "norms" and "networks." An intellectual belief in right and wrong is not sufficient. Teens require a community that supports their good choices, especially in times of testing and personal crisis. "Kids who are embedded in a social network with shared norms," he concludes, "are more likely to abide by them."

Sociologist Peter Berger calls these networks "plausibility structures" -- sources of authority that do more than lecture or shame; they define the meaning of common sense. When institutions such as religious groups, families, government and the media send a strong and consistent message -- smoking is stupid, driving under the influence is criminal, teen pregnancy is self-destructive -- we have sometimes seen dramatic changes in behavior. Teen pregnancy and birth rates in the United States, for example, have declined by about one-third since the early 1990s. [emphasis added]

The trend in churches is towards individualism and away from community - and it appears we are reaping exactly what we are sowing. (funny that? Jesus was right again.)

Salvation may be individualistic, but sanctification is most certainly not.

And community is about a whole lot more than small groups or accountability structures, they help, but they are insufficient of themselves. Genuine community is a bonding on very deep levels - it is living together, not just checking in now and then.

In our society, in our churches, in our small groups, in even our marriages, we stink at intimacy. I have linked to this old musing of mine before, and I am just going to reprint it here now:

Last week's scribblings hit on two themes that I think are worth exploring in more detail, brokeness and intimacy. I also think these concepts are deeply related, and need to be explored together.

Intimacy is sorely lacking in our world today. As I said last week, I am not talking about sex, that is plentiful, I am talking about genuine emotional and relational intimacy. Sociologists talk about the growing isolation of people in the world today. Usually when they talk about it, they talk about how technology is helping to create it. People stay at home and watch TV rather than engage in social discourse. People email rather than talk now. Those observations are true enough, but I do not think that explains it all. I don’t know what sociological studies show, but I know that in my life I would rather stay home and watch TV than go to a social occasion where it is all small talk and no real communication occurs. I crave intimacy and would gladly give up my technological toys in exchange for more genuine relationships, but why give them up when the majority of the personal social intercourse I encounter does not carry with it any more intimacy than the technological intercourse? The technological toys at least make it a little more interesting.

I would also add that technological intercourse, email and so forth (not TV watching), can be even more intimate that conversation - if it is well done. Such technological intercourse is nothing more than writing, and writing forces one to organize one's thoughts and ideas. It also requires one to distill one's emotions into something describable. If I can describe what I am thinking and feeling to you, that is most intimate, and while it cannot replace a hug, it can impart far more, and far more intimate information. So if that is the case, it would seem to me that technology is not the barrier to intimacy that the sociologists would have us think it is. The barrier is the use of that technology. There must be something deeper that prevents intimacy.

Think about sexual intimacy for a moment. I don’t have a lot of experience with that with anyone but my wife, but in this day and age it is not hard to find those that have a certain breadth of experience and it is not very hard to read about it at all. From the information I have been able to gather, the greatest reluctance in those situations is not the sex, it’s the nudity. Why do you think that would be the case? Why is nudity a barrier to sex? Nudity is pretty necessary to sex; I don’t know about you but the wife and I find that clothes usually get in the way.

I think the answer is straightforward. Clothing creates an illusion. We can make ourselves look better than we really do look when we are clothed. But when we get naked we find that the object of our lust may not be quite as spectacular as the wonder bra (or sock in the pants) led us to believe. Sexual intimacy requires that we reveal ourselves, including our imperfections, to our partner. Nudity puts at risk our image of perfection, and more importantly puts at risk the desire that image has created in our partner, and thus we risk rejection.

Relational intimacy is the same. The more intimate we become with someone socially, the more we risk their discovery that we are not quite all that we are cracked up to be. The reason that intimacy is in short supply today is not because technology is in the way; it is because people are no longer willing to risk the exposure that intimacy requires.

Why is that? Everybody is imperfect; we all have foibles and problems, why should it be so hard to let others see them? I think it is because when we expose those imperfections to others we expose them to ourselves. The image that is REALLY at risk in intimacy is not the image the other has of us, but the image we have of ourselves. The risk is not that they will reject us, but that we will reject ourselves, or more aptly, we will be forced to confront the issue and try to fix it.

Let me say that again -- THE RISK OF INTIMACY IS NOT THE RISK OF REJECTION BY THE OTHER, IT IS THE RISK OF US HAVING TO CONFRONT AND WORK ON OUR OWN IMPERFECTIONS. Anyone in the psychology business is probably reading this right now and going, "No, Duh!" But I really need to establish that point to get to the real point I want to make.

That confrontation of our own imperfections is what I have called brokeness. Brokeness is the self-revelation that I am a wretch. Repentance, as discussed last week is the acknowledgement of the self-revelation. Now this has massive implications for pop-psychology the church.

Let's start with pop-psychology. I think this aversion to the confrontation of one's own limitations started when the whole self-image movement started in the 70's. That movement has taken hold in our American ethos with an extreme vigor. Most people in an effort "to feel good about themselves" have simply rejected self-analysis. They don’t confront their imperfections; they deny their existence. I have heard one clinical psychiatrist on the radio say that in the last 30 years the greatest psychological problem facing most people today has shifted from guilt to narcissism. Pop-psychology may have done a good thing when they labeled "self-image" as a problem, but they have done one hell of a bad job helping people fix it.

Now, on to the church. The church's message should be very opposite that popular version of maintaining a self-image. The message of the church is not "You're OK." To the contrary, the message of the church is "You're a wretch. You're a wicked, warped, sinful individual. -- BUT YOU ARE LOVED." As I understand Christianity, it is the only thing that gives me a method to overcome my deficiencies. Denying my shortcomings does not make them cease to exist. If I accept "self-image" as the big psychological bug-a-boo, then Christianity gives me a way to fix it. You see Christianity teaches me that despite my problems, I am loved. I can feel good about myself, not because I don't have problems, but because the God of the universe died for me. In other words, it's impossible to have a good self-image; it is only possible to have a good image reflected through the mirror of my relationship with the Lord. Not only that, the more I discover my own wretchedness, the better that reflection (as opposed to direct image) gets because the more love is required to clean that reflection up.

This is why I am so opposed to most of the later day trends in church. Most of those trends are designed to provide anonymity and avoid intimacy. Programs are a form of bureaucracy and anonymity in a bureaucracy is easy. Mega-churches should be obvious. Reliance on staff instead of volunteerism means that only those that want to (i.e. those that choose to be staff) need to stick their head up and lose their anonymity. Similarly, the more staff, the more bureaucracy. Less liturgical, more "user friendly" services allow us people to sing, but not speak and commit; they gain some sense of community from a shared experience, but they never have to speak or think, or actually communicate with one another.

People respond to these things, no doubt, but they respond because that is the way of the world right now. But the way of Christianity is different. The world shuns intimacy; Christianity calls us to intimacy with God and with each other. The way to intimacy is brokeness, so the church needs to be calling us to brokeness, not letting us hide.

Be assured I am not proposing "turn or burn" evangelism here. I am also not necessarily saying that the modern trends in the church fails to lead to salvation; I have my doubts about some of it, but that judgment is the Lord's, not mine. I am; however, saying that the modern trends in the church will not lead to intimacy with the Lord. I am also saying that intimacy with each other leads to intimacy with the Lord and vice versa.

I do not think that God wants merely our salvation. If that was all He wanted, He could have just waved His hands and thrown open the doors of heaven. No, I think God wants to be intimate with us. So I think we have a duty in the church. Our duty is to model intimacy with God and one another. And that means our duty is to reveal ourselves, blemishes and all.

I pray God we can get about it.

Who are you intimate with? Are you purposeful about learning to be intimate?