Millennials Leaving the Church

[RFayette 🇻🇦]

Here are some possible explanations:

1. Lack of apologetics training - churches generally do a very poor job (if at all) of giving reasons to believe what is presented.  This is sad, as a wealth of great authors, such as Lee Strobel, William Lane Craig, and J Warner Wallace provide an excellent historical case for the New Testament and philosophical defenses of orthodox Christian theology. 

2. Lack of clarity - similarly, many millennial don't understand what Christianity is and the basics of Christian doctrine.  This wishy-washiness is naturally going to lead to less interest in faith and make one more likely to make statements like "All religions are basically the same," which would obviously make church attendance seem less obligatory.  On the other hand, fundamentalist churches which over-emphasize positions such as young-Earth creationism or encourage denial or obfuscation of scientific facts will seem ridiculous and cause disillusionment with the church.

3. Disagreement - in other cases, millennials have a full knowledge of their religion and simply reject it, whether it be for differences over social issues or other considerations (for example, the doctrine of salvation through Christ alone seeming inherently unfair or narrow-minded).  In this case, the individual simply no longer agrees with the required behavioral norms and beliefs they associate with Christianity, and simply decide to leave the faith as a result.

4. Logistics - many churches have a youth group where kids go instead of services.  Having never attended a full normal service (or only for Easter or other special occasions) and not being used to it, they don't want to sit through a full service and get bored by it.

5. Issues with parents - sharp disagreements with parents may spill over into matters of faith, as the parents' decisions the individual disagrees with is seen as because of religion -i.e. an individual annoyed with parental restrictions on seeing friends / what they can or cannot watch and thus associate Christianity with overbearing authoritarianism.

[RFayette 🇻🇦]

This is key. Lack of apologetics training has hurt credibility.

Yes, it's unfortunate because even fringe positions like Jesus mythicism are causing unfortunate doubts because churches have not equipped people with the information to defend the historicity and reliability of the New Testament.  The fact that 1 Corinthians 15 can be dated to around 20 years after Jesus's crucifixion, and that the oral tradition it comes from is widely agreed to be much earlier than that (even among non believing scholars), it is incredible how common the argument that the Gospel is nothing but legend and hearsay from people who never knew Jesus is.

[RFayette 🇻🇦]

This is key. Lack of apologetics training has hurt credibility.

Yes, it's unfortunate because even fringe positions like Jesus mythicism are causing unfortunate doubts because churches have not equipped people with the information to defend the historicity and reliability of the New Testament.  The fact that 1 Corinthians 15 can be dated to around 20 years after Jesus's crucifixion, and that the oral tradition it comes from is widely agreed to be much earlier than that (even among non believing scholars), and it is incredible how common the argument that the Gospel is nothing but legend and heresy from people who never knew Jesus is.

Is that a major problem in your neck of the woods? I can't say I've heard of anyone leaving over historical or textual criticism. Evangelicals seem to be doing ok at that. I would posit that our education of young people is more lacking because we're doing a poor job of teaching apologetics around morality, faith etc.

Well, I know people who were convinced by Jesus mythicist arguments based on parallels to pagan mythologies, or who believe that the Gospels were written several centuries after the fact (at the Council of Nicaea I have even heard); a lot of prominent American atheists on the Internet seem to like these claims and this might be their source, which would explain why they are less popular in Canada.  However, it was only people I know personally  who were PCUSA who brought up those arguments, so it might be less of a problem for those in more evangelical churches.  These criticisms are often in conjunction with gripes about Christian ethical norms and the exclusivity of salvation, as you allude to.

[RFayette 🇻🇦]

This is key. Lack of apologetics training has hurt credibility.

Yes, it's unfortunate because even fringe positions like Jesus mythicism are causing unfortunate doubts because churches have not equipped people with the information to defend the historicity and reliability of the New Testament.  The fact that 1 Corinthians 15 can be dated to around 20 years after Jesus's crucifixion, and that the oral tradition it comes from is widely agreed to be much earlier than that (even among non believing scholars), and it is incredible how common the argument that the Gospel is nothing but legend and heresy from people who never knew Jesus is.

Writing about an event does not mean that the event happened, particularly any events of a supernatural nature. Not that it needs to have happened/recorded for the purposes of faith. For example the earliest Quranic texts, in terms of actual existing parchments, can be dated to the period of Mohammad's contemporaries. If historicity and reliability matter, then this would matter too.

Agreed, but it does refute the claim that Jesus never existed or that belief in his resurrection was a later embellishment long after the events surrounding the man took place.  Whether or not to believe the claims is indeed a separate question, but it is important to lay a foundation concerning the historical reliability of the Gospels. 

[RFayette 🇻🇦]

Idk, if millenials wanna find apologetics they can easily research it for themselves online. Perhaps instead the issue is that believing in Christianity's explanations for the natural world are now unconvincing, with all the advances in scientific understanding that we've made since the 1st century CE.

There is a grain of truth that current scientific findings may cast conventional Biblical interpretations of Genesis and creation in doubt to some extent.  Nonetheless, I would contend that many of the strongest arguments in favor of Christianity - mainly concerning the reliability of the New Testament, which have been elucidated by writers such as CS Lewis in the past to J Warner Wallace and Lee Strobel today - are largely unknown among those who have left the church.  I have heard claims that books in the Christian canon were not written until the Council of Nicaea, that there is no evidence for a historical Jesus at all, etc.  - these claims are refuted by the overwhelming consensus of Biblical scholars, and I think equipping young people with this knowledge would do wonders in helping keep them in the church.

[RFayette 🇻🇦]

Idk, there's very little to support the claim of Jesus being resurrected except for "his followers strongly believed it." Just because people believe in miracles doesn't make it true; heck, belief in the supernatural and miraculous events was widespread all over the Near East in that time. You can find true believers of modern day miracle-doers, some who'd probably give their lives if they believed strongly enough.

Imo, we can dismiss that literal resurrection actually occurred because we know scientifically it's impossible. Working from there, we can come up with other theories. I'm convinced that something occurred that many people witnessed, but it was either misinterpreted or exaggerated/embellished.

I agree that the resurrection claim on its own .  Of course, none of this means that Christianity is certainly true, simply that I believe a strong case can be made for it based on historical evidence.  Back to the context of the thread, I would argue that better teaching in apologetics would convince more young people to stick with Christianity, even if it's still imperfect. 


I would refer you to this fantastic site, specifically to the negations argument:
https://beliefmap.org/jesus-resurrected/
1. Jesus is the most influential human being who has ever existed.  I would argue that this fact alone means that the accounts of his resurrection should be taken far more seriously than other miracle claims, because the inherent probability of him being a divine figure is much higher on this account, especially when one considers that this is consistent with the Christian teaching that God would spend the Holy Spirit to the Earth to draw people to the repentance and belief in Jesus and make disciples of all the nations.
2. Jesus fulfills many Jewish prophesies of a Messiah.  So this is a miracle claim that has a foundation in past predictions, which again heightens the probability that this is a miracle
3. As Christian bishop NT Wright puts it, both the empty tomb and the post-crucifixion appearances of Jesus to his disciples are like two half-arches that are historical facts, and the resurrection is the cornerstone that ties them together and offers the best explanation of the facts.  Even opponents to Christianity concede the empty tomb  as recorded by Early Church Fathers, which is a critical piece of evidence in favor of the resurrection.

So retrospectively, we have a man who impacted human history more than any other and is worshipped as God by 2 billion people around the world, whose life circumstances were extraordinary in relation to the much-earlier descriptions of the Jewish messiah; we further see evidence of numerous post-resurrection experiences and an empty tomb.  With respect to the resurrection being unscientific, the basic Christian premise is that the laws of nature are upheld by God and can be changed in the event of a miracle; arguing that miracles are unscientific is simply dismissing the possibility of a God with supernatural power, which to me is an unreasonable starting point when investigating the Gospels if we rule out supernatural explanations without further examining the evidence.

[RFayette 🇻🇦]

Idk, there's very little to support the claim of Jesus being resurrected except for "his followers strongly believed it." Just because people believe in miracles doesn't make it true; heck, belief in the supernatural and miraculous events was widespread all over the Near East in that time. You can find true believers of modern day miracle-doers, some who'd probably give their lives if they believed strongly enough.

Imo, we can dismiss that literal resurrection actually occurred because we know scientifically it's impossible. Working from there, we can come up with other theories. I'm convinced that something occurred that many people witnessed, but it was either misinterpreted or exaggerated/embellished.

I agree that the resurrection claim on its own .  Of course, none of this means that Christianity is certainly true, simply that I believe a strong case can be made for it based on historical evidence.  Back to the context of the thread, I would argue that better teaching in apologetics would convince more young people to stick with Christianity, even if it's still imperfect. 


I would refer you to this fantastic site, specifically to the negations argument:
https://beliefmap.org/jesus-resurrected/
1. Jesus is the most influential human being who has ever existed.  I would argue that this fact alone means that the accounts of his resurrection should be taken far more seriously than other miracle claims, because the inherent probability of him being a divine figure is much higher on this account, especially when one considers that this is consistent with the Christian teaching that God would spend the Holy Spirit to the Earth to draw people to the repentance and belief in Jesus and make disciples of all the nations.
2. Jesus fulfills many Jewish prophesies of a Messiah.  So this is a miracle claim that has a foundation in past predictions, which again heightens the probability that this is a miracle
3. As Christian bishop NT Wright puts it, both the empty tomb and the post-crucifixion appearances of Jesus to his disciples are like two half-arches that are historical facts, and the resurrection is the cornerstone that ties them together and offers the best explanation of the facts.  Even opponents to Christianity concede the empty tomb  as recorded by Early Church Fathers, which is a critical piece of evidence in favor of the resurrection.

So retrospectively, we have a man who impacted human history more than any other and is worshiped as God by 2 billion people around the world, whose life circumstances were extraordinary in relation to the much-earlier descriptions of the Jewish messiah; we further see evidence of numerous post-resurrection experiences and an empty tomb.  With respect to the resurrection being unscientific, the basic Christian premise is that the laws of nature are upheld by God and can be changed in the event of a miracle; arguing that miracles are unscientific is simply dismissing the possibility of a God with supernatural power, which to me is an unreasonable starting point when investigating the Gospels if we rule out supernatural explanations without further examining the evidence.

"Jesus is the most influential human being who has ever existed"
That's just a subjective Christian opinion. No offense but many, many people would disagree with that. For example, I'd say Caesar was more important. Without him, we wouldn't have the Roman Empire, therefore no Romans in Judea, therefore no crucifixion. Also, your logic doesn't work: being important doesn't equal a higher likelihood that of truth.

"Even opponents to Christianity concede the empty tomb"
The empty tomb ain't evidence in favor of resurrection. It's evidence that the body was removed somehow. I'd use Occam's Razor: the simplest theory is better than the more complex one. It's simpler to say that the body was stolen, which was a common problem in Jesus' time, than it is to say that something occurred that defied the laws of nature and physics.

"arguing that miracles are unscientific is simply dismissing the possibility of a God with supernatural power"
There is always a scientific, natural explanation for supernatural and magical phenomena. I can dismiss the explanation of a supernaturally powerful God over a totally plausible, natural occurrence because one is falsifiable and matches with our most advanced knowledge of nature, and the other is a totally unscientific, extraordinary explanation.

1.I agree you could make a case that others had more influence than Jesus, but I do believe it was undeniable he was very historically important in much of the world.  The reason I have this claim is that a resurrection is by definition, naturally impossible and would thus be a result of a divine being or God who would likely want to send a message to all of humanity (as is claimed in the New Testament - the resurrection marks the change of the notion of God's chosen people from being just in Israel to having converts across the whole world).  Thus, a man who actually fulfills that promise by becoming so well-known would increase the base probability of the resurrection claims being true, as opposed to a little-known figure or a mythical entity no longer recognized by anyone. 

2.
I agree that an empty tomb alone is nowhere near sufficient evidence for a resurrection, but my attempt is to make a cumulative case for it - while each piece of evidence alone is insufficient, I would argue that the case as a whole becomes rather persuasive when all the facts are taken into account.

3.
I think this is a crucial element - all of us have different prior probabilities of the idea of god (an all-powerful being who can intervene supernaturally in our world) existing.  It appears I have a different prior probability of that before examining the evidence the you do, so you would look at the evidence and require a higher burden of proof, which is reasonable.  However, I would note that there are good reasons to doubt the stolen body hypothesis, as elucidated here.
https://beliefmap.org/jesus-resurrected/tomb-empty/body-stolen/

[RFayette 🇻🇦]

Jesus is not particularly influential in the Middle East, India or China.  His influence overlaps areas where Christianity is prevalent.

Jesus does not fulfill Jewish prophesies of a messiah as there are still Jews who objectively have suffered more than most other religious groups (and often at the hands of Christians) to maintain that belief. Muslims also feel the same way. Whether or not someone fulfilled Jewish prophesies really should only concern those who believe Jaweh is the one and only god and the Jews were its chosen people (who happened to be the same tribe that worshipped it). Would be converts told that Jesus fulfilled the prophecy of another religion except that religion doesn't believe he did and Islam doesn't think that either isn't exactly a 'wow' moment.

The historicity of the empty tomb is easily refutable.

There were no guards at the tomb in the Gospel of Mark. If the empty tomb teaching pre-dated Mark, Mark would have addressed the naturally occurring issue of grave robbery in his gospel. Instead, it is only after Mark makes his announcement of an empty tomb that we see a Matthew addressing the issue originally raised by Mark.

Why did the empty tomb suddenly became a very important detail that needed to be emphasized in all 4 canonical gospels when previously no one found it important enough to mention in writing?

Paul (in the earliest Christian account of the resurrection) claims the risen Christ appeared before him just as the risen Christ appeared before the disciples. But Paul did not witness a flesh and blood risen Christ. Paul gives us no reason to believe anybody witnesses a flesh and blood risen Christ. So Paul gives us no reason to believe the tomb was empty.

In the gospels, the disappearance of Christ's physical body needed to be explained with an ascension. Paul says nothing about an ascension. Paul has no reason to explain the disappearance of Christ's physical body because Paul's risen Christ has no physical body.

The gospel of John reveals the fact that a non-corporeal risen-Christ was among the earliest traditions of Christianity. The stone blocking the entrance to the tomb was rolled aside but, in John 20, the risen Christ could walk through walls. If the risen Christ could walk through walls then surely he could have walked through the stone blocking the entrance to the tomb.

The absence of an empty tomb tradition until approx. 70 AD also explains why no one really knows where Christ was buried. No one gave a thought to where the resurrection miracle had occurred until approx. 70 AD. That's because, prior to approx. 70 AD, the resurrection miracle was a purely spiritual event and did not involve a disappearing  flesh and blood corpse

A non-corporeal resurrection was a part of Jewish tradition: "The view expressed in the [Dead Sea] Scrolls accord in general with those attributed by Josephus (Antiq. XVIII.i.5; War II.viii.11) to the Essenes, with whom, indeed, the Qumran sectaries may be identical...They held that although bodies were perishable, souls endured and mounted upward, the good to the realm of bliss, the evil to be consigned to a place of torment. This view is expressed also in Wisd. Sol. 3:1ff.; 5:16; Jub. 25; while something of the same kind--though without the reference to ultimate judgment--appears in Eccl. 12:7 ('the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God')

A few points:
1. 1 Corinthians 15 refers pretty clearly to the empty tomb and it is an early Pauline letter written about 20 years after the crucifixion. 
2. Again, I would concede that if we were looking solely at Jewish prophesy, you could make arguments for or against him meeting the qualifications.  However, if we make a cumulative case (including evidence based on the empty tomb and resurrection sightings), the fact that Jesus matches much of the descriptions of the Jewish Messiah is noteworthy.
3. Even in the Muslim world, Islam could only exist if Jesus came, as Islam blends elements of Christian practices at the time into its practice and claims that Jesus was the true way at the time.  Furthermore, Christianity, even in areas where it is not widely practiced, had a huge impact on notions such as human rights and dignity, and the influence of the West (which is strongly influenced by Christianity) can be seen worldwide in a very strong sense.  My point is that we would expect belief in Jesus rising from the dead to be widespread if Christianity were true, because the New Testament predicts that there would be believers in all the nations, and the very endurance of the faith is part of the case for it.

As far as the differences in Resurrection accounts, I believe they can be explained by the difference being actions when the soldiers were guarding the tomb and when they weren't after having fled(I understand not all Gospels record every detail, but I believe they can be harmonized):  this is explained in further detail here:
https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/42-291/an-empty-tomb-with-an-angelic-explanation
I have not investigated this detail as thoroughly, but I believe the basic case of the sightings of Jesus and empty tomb tradition from 1 Corinthians 15 still stands regardless, and makes a case in its own right, even with accounts that may seem a bit conflicting.