Of course, the most effective way ...if not the best way, is to ask the person without being intrusive.

As the story goes ...

Young man: "I feel uncomfortable going to church ...I've done a lot of wrong things, and I'd feel like a hypocrite if I came to church."

Pastor (or priest): "Well, if you change your mind, we could always use one more."

Yet, the dialogue has seemed to change in recent years ...and instead of the person not feeling they're good enough to go to church because they are a sinner, they often feel everyone else is a hypocrite.

We seem to be not only in a changing culture, but in a confused one. For a long time now we've been reinforcing a culture of ...well, I don't want to say quitters, but a culture that distorts accountability and responsibility. I'm not saying anyone should continue to do things that make them feel uncomfortable ...but I'm also not saying that is always a sufficient reason to quit.

As the saying goes, "Don't give up, when the going gets tough."

And what I mean by accountability, it seems we've heard too often to look out for number one. I heard a little child say, "You should look out for number two, because it always follows number one."

Aside from joking, I feel that we've more or less accepted the idea that our happiness is of ultimate importance ...and often we feel that there isn't anybody more qualified for knowing what makes us happy than ourselves.  Sometimes we take this to the limit ...even if it makes everyone else miserable. 

And we are oblivious to the fact that it could even make us miserable.  We are a society that quits on our marriages, campaigns against life in the womb, and discounts the fact that God is more concerned that we grow than be entertained.  

Asking why young people leave the church is like asking why a person likes the color blue ---you can do like the 'Family Feud' game show, and post the top five answers ---but, overall, for every individual there is probably their own unique reason.

The Bible itself has been more increasingly put to the test in recent years.  But, we do have the tremendous benefit to have a Bible ...as that has not always been a convenience over the years.  Let's look at a little history here:

When we think of a patriarch from the Bible, Abraham certainly comes to mind.  As he left his birthplace, many may have viewed him as a wanderer, but he was directed by God into the land of Canaan to settle there, no longer to wander. 

Around 1000 BC, at the time of King David, scribes and copyists were writing on papyrus and skin scrolls, know as early Hebrew.  Then a couple hundred years more found the northern kingdom conquered by the Assyrians, and later the southern kingdom fell to the Babylonians.

It wasn’t until much later, under King Cyrus of Persia, that repatriation began.  King Cyrus encouraged the Jewish people to return to the land and restore the temple.  Though the Scriptures continued to be written in Hebrew with great care to ensure the accuracy of the sacred text, Aramaic began to replace Hebrew as the common language.   

A couple hundred years later, Alexander the Great’s conquests (300s BC) were paramount with helping make Greek the prominent language of the Mediterranean. The visionary ideas that emerged from Alexander’s campaign brought the notion of the “brotherhood of man” and was seen partly as a missionary effort of sorts aimed at the advancement and conversion of the pagan world.  The Scriptures were translated into Greek for the non-Hebrew speaking people.  The work of 70 legendary scholars was called the Septuagint.   But, some rabbis saw it as more helpful in Hellenizing the Jewish people than being effective in converting the Hellenes.  Some rabbis held the view that the day the Septuagint was completed was “as unlucky a day for Israel as the day of the fabrication of the golden calf.”

There were many good priests, and John the Baptist’s dad, Zacharius, was one of them. But, there were also many who were not good.  At the time Jesus began His ministry, you’d think they’d be pleased with the many wonderful things Jesus did, but many chief priests were very displeased.  Scribes and Pharisees were constantly attempting to twist words or trip up Jesus with their questions and His answers.  They felt they were the authority, and would not accept Jesus.  Matthew 26:3-4 sums up the conclusion of their thoughts about Jesus …”Then assembled together  the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders of the people, unto the palace of the high priest, who was Caiaphas, and consulted that they might take Jesus by subtilty, and kill Him.”  (And the same attitude towards the apostles is expressed in the Book of Acts …challenging them (Acts 4:1-7).  Most of the apostles also died horrific deaths, including being stoned, beheaded, burned, and crucified.)

After the death and resurrection of Jesus, the 4 Gospels did not appear as a collection until over a hundred years later.  The Epistles of Paul were gathered together much before that.  There were many writings in circulation, some of which brought much confusion, so in AD 367, a Bishop from Alexandria established 27 New Testament Books.  Under the direction of Pope Damasus I., Jerome was requested to deal further with this reorganization, and the version is called the Vulgate.

Though I am focusing mostly on how the English Bible came about (for me to read), the struggle did not just exist in one small area …it was throughout Europe.  In 1229, a church council in Toulouse, France, forbade anyone who was not a priest from owning a Bible.

In the Middle Ages, several thousand monasteries were established throughout Europe, with the chief task of monks being to copy the Scriptures.  But, by the late Middle Ages, with the growth of cathedral schools and an increasing number of universities, a new group called ‘professional copyists’ made profit as booksellers and setting up shop near the areas of the advantaged.  Though, aside from these privileged who could afford to further an education, most of the people were illiterate …so there was more a need for the picture Bibles, full of wonderful illustrations to tell the story.

Although the New Testament had reached England around AD 600, hundreds of years elapsed before a complete English Bible was available.  In the 1300s, John Wycliffe tried to introduce his English translation, but he and his followers were branded heretics.

In 1455, Johann Gutenberg’s printing press produced its first important book, a Bible, the Latin Vulgate.  In 1534, Martin Luther came out with his work, including also an artistic rendering of the ancient text …once again, giving even the illiterate a picture or glimpse of  the awesomeness of God.  The push for an English Bible continued.  William Tyndale tried to convince church authorities of the need of a printed English Bible, and he found means to print it outside the country, then shipped it to England.  But, Henry VIII had the copies seized and publicly burned.  In 1536, Tyndale was arrested by Dutch authorities, and executed.

Though, about that same time, Coverdale published his complete Bible, dedicating it to Henry VIII, now head on an independent church in England.  The Bible did not get royal approval, but at least this one was spared burning.  Then 4 years later, Coverdale was instructed and instrumental in making sure a copy was placed in every church.   

Yet, when the Queen Mary came to the throne several years later (succeeding her half-brother Edward VI), she forbade the printing of any English Bible, and she condemned its use in parish churches, stating the Bible had to be in Latin and explained by the clergy.

Though in 1558, Queen Elisabeth saw things differently, ordering an English translation in each parish church.  Then in 1603, King James assumed the throne, and in 1611 the King James Version was published. 

It seemed that each ruler had their own version of ‘Game of Thrones’.   And some were so bold as to think they were the authority to the throne of Heaven.     

An argument from ignorance, or appeal to ignorance is a fallacy in informal logic. It says something is true because it has not yet been proved false.

To make an argument from silence is to express a conclusion that is based on the absence of statements in historical documents, rather than their presence.

Direct observation showed that the sun revolved around the earth …so, it can be seen how difficult Copernicus’s task must have been in attempting to convince respected scholars who believed he was in error.  Only about a hundred years earlier Galileo Galilei was tried for heresy for similar ideas.

Likewise, when discussing the Bible, a popular phrase is: “…the text simply does not say.”  But, there are occasions that the text does say something …yet, we are faced with a similar argument, as it often does not say enough.  Or perhaps it says just enough to get the mind working …or for someone to work your mind for you.

Evolutionary science states that approximately 14 billion years ago the ‘Big Bang’ took place …and here we are today (of course, filling in some blanks with chosen data presented as facts) borrowing both from the ‘argument from ignorance’ and the ‘argument from silence’. Yes, take your pick …they did!!

Many Christians have stated that in reading the Bible, there are those who use the argument from silence approach, when really it appears that it could be more accurately an argument for who spoke first …and leaning upon the majority, or how longstanding has been the acceptance.  Yet, using this approach, we'd still be saying the sun revolves around the earth.

                                  ***********************************************

In summary, I contend this has been very effective in steering the church.  The very thing we should all have is reverence towards God …but, it often is influenced by those who feel they have supreme understanding about the very things that are not written in God’s Word.  Yet, beyond understanding the reverence that we must have …authority and guilt go hand-in-hand when the church has the authority and we know we are all guilty.

Sin is separation from God …and I believe we need to make a conscious effort not to be separated from Him, as we are naturally sinners.  The first separation from God most believers would say was instituted by Lucifer.  And with God’s righteousness, He could say we are all going to be judged by that very act of rebellion …as we all do rebel in some fashion or another.  Yet, Lucifer was sent to this world …and it was Adam who was set apart to choose whether to act in separation from God, or not. 

Of course, Adam failed on that note, called sin, and we all fail in that way.  But, God did not fail to make a way for us.  Jesus came to earth to provide the way, the truth, and the life.

Why is there a need for the Apostle Paul to write, “For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.”

And Romans 3:23 reminds us, “For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God;” …along with Romans 5:12-13, “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.”

Yes, there was need for Paul to write to those in Rome, Corinth, Galatia, Ephesus, Philippi, Colosse, and the Thessalonians …and to individuals as Timothy, Titus, and Philemon.  How quickly they often went astray!!

And the most open believers became martyrs …no longer being around to help the church stay on a straight path.  Yes, there was much care to preserve the documents which have become the Bible …yet, it was not initially available to all, and many were illiterate.  Today, that is not true at all …the Bible being the best-selling and most read book of all time. Still, there are those who feel that we cannot read with understanding, though the majority of us can read.  And if we challenge the understanding of those who claim to have supreme understanding, they make it seem we are challenging God. 

Yet, aside from the variations between churches, the Bible does not have the same variations ...the sole variation coming from the interpretations of esteemed leaders. The well-preserved Bible can be understood by those who read it ...as God's Word to us.  By all means, don't leave reading the Bible ...continue to read it.  But, as we view the church, we may wonder and ask why people leave the church.  And no, this is not 'Family Feud', but I will list the top five answers (of one poll) of why young people leave the church.  Here they are:

1) "First and foremost is the idea that religious people are hypocritical, judgmental or insincere."  I say, not everyone has the mentality of the old mob movies ...where they gun people down throughout the week, then on Sunday muster all their politeness and go to church.  Most all believers also believe they are sinners ...but don't believe they should flaunt the sin.  Nor do they believe you should flog the sinner.  Yet, anyone who believes in a judge higher than themselves and who espouses those values is often subject to the accusation of being 'judgmental'.  

2) "Politics at the pulpit isn’t really a foreign concept in America. Considering that Biblical texts often lead believers to embrace more conservative viewpoints, it’s not uncommon for pastors and congregations to hold controversial views on a variety of controversial issues — opinions that some might disagree with."  If a person only wants to hear that Jesus loves them ...they may disassociate with churches who actually teach more of what Jesus said, and avoid individuals who they think also believe in a strict interpretation of what the Bible says.

3) "Isolationism is another issue that is sometimes credited for leading young people away from the church... claims that a fourth of 18 to 29-year-olds believe that churches demonize everything that resides outside of Christian culture. This, of course, consists of mainstream music, movies, culture and technology. Considering how plugged in the youth and young adults are, isolationism in church communities might be viewed as a potential turn-off to young believers."  And many people don't realize that what they are 'plugged into' is much bent on taking a stance against those who claim the Bible is the Word of God.

4) "Openness is yet another perceived problem. Young adults view the church as closed off and too exclusive, especially in light of an increasingly-pluralistic society. They feel they have to choose between church and friends."  Many of those friends come from school ...whether it is high school or college, it is a fact that it is where most of the youth's time is spent for most of the year.  And there is such an intense overload of assimilation of knowledge with pressures to meet the grade ...that the proving ground is usually where performance equals the degree of regurgitation of those facts.  The churches deal mostly with an absolute ...as truth, and God.  So, the church is often thought to be set in their ways and not 'open' to adapting to a changing society ...therefore, since they view God as the absolute authority, that often appears as a direct contradiction to what they've been striving to learn in school, heaped with the rhetoric of intolerance.  It creates doubt ...and the church appears as unchanging in a changing world, and a bit old-fashioned.

5) Morality is also an issue that might turn young people away from the church, noted by a list compiled by Christianity Today's Journal. “The church is perceived as simplistic and judgmental. A ‘just say no’ philosophy is insufficient in a techno-world. Young Christian singles are as sexually active as their non-churched friends, and many say they feel judged.” Morality is also considered old-fashioned, and not self-serving.  It is viewed as setting you behind ...giving everyone else an advantage.

To sum this up, our oldest son wants to play football.  There will be practices, workouts, and he will have to learn some plays.  If he would just show up and say he didn't need to practice, he would likely not be allowed on the team.  The truth is, he wants to be on the team ...and he knows he doesn't know everything, and that he can always learn more.

With church, it is different.  I can't imagine anyone saying you can't come or how often you have to come. But, even if you think there is nothing more that you can learn about God ...there is still a reason to go to church. If you think you know everything there is to know, then maybe you can be a teacher, or help someone in another way.  Or if you don't know much, then maybe you can be my friend ...because I don't either.  Maybe being a blogger, gives me just some time to blabber ...but, I'm still a blogger, not a flogger.

Some people go to AAA meetings because they feel they need help and encouragement to stay away from an addiction or temptation.  Whatever our problems are---and we all have them---we can find healthy groups and encouragement.

Though some people think outreach activities are too time consuming.  I'd like to think the people at church are people I'm going to spend eternity with ...and there are others outside the church that I love, that I'd like to spend eternity with.  I think outreach is a good and worthwhile thing.  Yet, I have to admit that I spend the majority of my time doing things that are not going to exist in Heaven.  For instance, I don't believe we will have computers in Heaven.  I may watch several baseball games a week, yet I go to church for just an hour.  That seems like little time, yet there are some people who feel it's a bother to spend any time at all.

Some churches provide a wide variety of activities, to attempt to make everyone feel accepted.  But, if activity is the reason to go to church ...that reason may fade away.

Spiritual growth does just that ...it grows.

So, I don't really know. If someone leaves the church, they should perhaps ask themselves why?

And if the answer is not sufficient ...perhaps a better question could be reasoned.

How do you feel it fits within God's purpose for you?

There is no sense trying to hide from God.  Adam and Eve tried that ...and it is not beneficial, nor does it make much sense.  And don't get me wrong, I'm not saying going to church is necessary for salvation.  I just feel if God is most important in our life, then how would it be if we told God we can't tolerate the people at church ...and at the same time expect Him to tolerate us, as we know He does.

Let us show love also, and admit that others can possibly share something with us about Him that has more value than what we could otherwise obtain from other less wise choices.