As the promising college freshmen of the class of 2016 attend their first classes in the coming weeks, Christians should be concerned. While these students are quite literate, biblical literacy is plummeting, even among adults. The Gospel Coalition’s Chris Castaldo warns:
As the school year starts up, particularly for those of us who enjoy regular contact with today’s students, that last item is worth pondering. Even if we work at evangelical redoubts such as Wheaton, Moody, Biola, or Taylor, the rising tide of biblical illiteracy ought to concern us. And it certainly isn’t just college freshmen who know so little about the Bible. Gallup has labeled the United States as “a nation of biblical illiterates.” Time notes, “Only half of U.S. adults know the title of even one Gospel. Most can’t name the Bible’s first book. The trend extends even to evangelicals.”
If our culture has become so biblically illiterate, as Castaldo points out, “terms such as ‘Forbidden Fruit,’ ‘The writing on the wall,’ ‘Good Samaritan,’ and ‘The Promised Land’ are unknown…” We have to find new images and new ways of explaining the faith, specifically to the cyber generation. Christians, more than ever, need to recognize the dual responsibilities of living “in but not of” this world. We must be “in” this world enough to know how to talk to others about what it means to be “of” another.
Castaldo continues:
We who seek to be agents of gospel renewal have twin challenges. We must not only know God’s Word ourselves, but we must also know our audience. We must be able not just to exegete and interpret Scripture, but apply it to the hearts and minds of our hearers. And we should take nothing for granted.
Might I suggest Fr. Robert Barron as a model? Through his Catholicism DVD series and his weekly Word on Fire YouTube videos on everything from Paul Ryan to Batman and the Hunger Games (SPOILER alerts), the way that he addresses the Christian faith through popular culture is superb.
August 28th, 2012 | 1:03 pm
Frankly, I am glad. Some Biblical stories are ennobling, like the Good Samaritan. Others, no so much. For example, the extermination of every Amalekite man, woman and child – supposedly ordered by God. Or the part – in the Ten Commandments, no less – where God says that he will avenge himself on the third or fourth generation for the faults of their fathers. I am glad that some people who regard God as the author of morality, do not know about these things – it probably makes them better people.
August 28th, 2012 | 1:16 pm
“I have found as a tutor in English Literature that if the average student wants to find out something about Platonism, the very last thing he thinks of doing is to take a translation of Plato off the library shelf and read the Symposium. He would rather read some dreary modern book ten times as long, all about “isms” and influences and only once in twelve pages telling him what Plato actually said.” – (C.S. Lewis, Athanasius: On the Incarnation)
As wonderful as Fr. Barron is, wouldn’t he still be a relatively poor cure for Biblical illiteracy? It’s an interesting article because it seems like you could attribute Biblical illiteracy in general to increasing secularism in the culture, but you could probably also attribute some level of Catholic Biblical illiteracy to the relatively true, in my experience, reputation of the Catholic faithful taking secondary sources over the Bible itself.
August 28th, 2012 | 2:03 pm
I still remember the story about a woman who polled her college classes to discover none of them knew what “the lilies of the field” meant.
I repeated that ancedote online once to receive a shocked response from a woman who knew — and she’s Jewish!
August 28th, 2012 | 3:35 pm
Max (can I call you Max?)
Well sure, ignorance always makes someone a better person.
Seriously, the Bible is the most read, most translated set of writings in the history of the world with immeasurable impact on human history. Quite apart from matters of faith, knowledge of the Bible is indispensable in understanding much of anything about human history and culture. I don’t see how Biblical illiteracy would be desirable from any angle.
August 28th, 2012 | 3:48 pm
I agree with Steve Billingsley here. Even setting religion aside, Biblical literacy is part of cultural literacy. If you don’t understand Biblical allusions, you are approaching a great deal of literature with a serious handicap.
August 28th, 2012 | 5:04 pm
Steve: Max (can I call you Max?)
Sure you can.
Steve: Well sure, ignorance always makes someone a better person.
I didn’t mean it like that. Only for people who believe that the Bible is inerrant and infallible. I’ve seen too many Christian fundamentalists and fundamentalist sites casually justify the genocide committed against the Amalekites – and even the murder of the children (it’s the humane thing to kill them, they’d be without their parents). The same way, I prefer Muslims who actually believe that Islam is a religion of peace – they are less likely to commit terrible crimes because of their religion.
August 28th, 2012 | 5:14 pm
Part of Biblical literacy is understanding at least common ways the Bible is interpreted. It doesn’t mean that one must endorse those ways. Casually justifying genocide isn’t a good thing, but to be fair – in the past 200 years or so haven’t the actual genocides committed in the world mostly been committed by secular regimes? (the Armenian genocide committed in Turkey being the exception)
Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot – not exactly Christian fundamentalists.
August 28th, 2012 | 6:39 pm
I have no problem with Biblical literacy, my only point was that I hope that people who are Biblical literalists do not realize how… evil the God of the Bible really is, if you take the Bible as inerrant.
Genocide has a definition (it doesn’t simply mean killing a lot of people), and in that ugly crowd you mention, the only one who attempted to carry out a genocide is Hitler. And even if you want to call him secular, he did not commit his crimes for that reason, and he is no God to me, or other secular people: I do not think you’ll find secular people casually justifying his genocide in this manner: http://www.gotquestions.org/Canaanites-extermination.html
People who believe this scare me. Don’t they scare you?
August 29th, 2012 | 10:20 am
Max,
It is no scarier for me to contemplate a ‘good faith’ effort (albeit inartful and wrongheaded) to explain the destruction of the Canannites than it is to contemplate someone who would dismiss the deaths of a hundred million or more by secular regimes as not “genocide”. You are quibbling about a distinction that is without genuine difference. Call it ‘democide’ (as some have) or ‘politicide’ if you wish –but the reality is that avowedly secular (mostly Communist) regimes were responsible for something on the order of a hundred million deaths in the last century.
Just one example:
Stalin’s first genocide was in the Ukraine under the forced collectivization of the ‘Kulaks’ — death toll estimated at around 7 million.
One could go on to discuss Mao, Pol Pot etc, all of whom targeted specific groups within their respective societies for suppression/extinction but the point is clear enough I think.
Bang away at the Bible and the God depicted therein — that’s fair enough. But understand that your “tribe” has oceans of blood on its own hands. And spare me the Pinker “less violent” citations please. I find his entire thesis wildly skewed and as disturbing in it’s dismissiveness and tendentiousness as you find the “Got Questions” folk.
August 29th, 2012 | 10:36 am
I think the “answer” that was given was poorly given. But no, these people don’t scare me for at least a couple of reasons.
1. When you look at the actual behavior of these people (and I don’t know these people i particular, but I know and have been around theologically conservative Christians my entire life) – there isn’t any sort of whiff of genocide (or normative violence) in their lives. In fact, people of this type are much more likely to be involved in acts of service and compassion than the general population. In the present day, the strongest and most work being done to stop things such as human trafficking and child sexual abuse are being done primarily (although not exclusively) in most parts of the word by just such persons.
2. At worst, they are guilty of muddled thinking or a lack of theological sophistication in interpreting Scripture.
As to the rest of your comment, how is parsing the definition of the word “genocide” and trying to define who was secular in describing the actions and motivations of people directly responsible for the death of millions of people carried out in a systematic way any different or better than the “casual justification of genocide” that you reference?
I don’t think the “Christian fundamentalist” is near the bogeyman that exists in your mind (in a whole variety of ways). Spend some time around some of these folks and while you are likely to see plenty of human weakness and hypocrisy (which you can find anywhere) – you might also find some of the best of what humanity has to offer. To be sure there are some pockets of scary “Christianity” (think Westboro Baptist or snake-handlers), they exist on the fringe of the Christian world, not in the heart of it.
August 29th, 2012 | 11:25 am
David C: than it is to contemplate someone who would dismiss the deaths of a hundred million or more by secular regimes as not “genocide”.
I didn’t dismiss it, I just pointed out that it wasn’t genocide. It makes not that much of a moral difference, but it had to be said.
David C: but the reality is that avowedly secular (mostly Communist) regimes were responsible for something on the order of a hundred million deaths in the last century.
All of them Communist, unless you want to (ridiculously) label the Nazi regime as secular. And isn’t it interesting that you can only name Communist regimes as evidence for the thesis that secularism is evil – when there is scarcely any Communist around, let alone someone like Stalin or Pol Pot.
David C: Stalin’s first genocide was in the Ukraine under the forced collectivization of the ‘Kulaks’ — death toll estimated at around 7 million.
And thank you for proving my point, which is that Stalin’s atheism is completely incidental to “forced collectivization”. I do not hold religions accountable for crimes committed by adherents that are completely incidental to them.
David C: But understand that your “tribe” has oceans of blood on its own hands.
If you want to label people a “tribe” for not believing in something, then your “tribe” – unbelievers who refuse to recognize the existence of the Unicorn – has much more blood on its hands than unbelievers in a God.
But back to my point. As you no doubt know, I do not follow Stalin, while Christian fundamentalists do follow the God they believe commanded mass extermination of innocents. I condemn Stalin’s mass murder, fundamentalists support “God’s” genocide. What kind of effect do you think this has on the morality of people?
August 29th, 2012 | 11:43 am
Steve: But no, these people don’t scare me for at least a couple of reasons.
None of your reasons address the fact that these people are in open support of the murder of children and babies. If you discovered that your neighbor supported the Holocaust, what would your reaction be, even if there wasn’t a “whiff of genocide” in him, and he made occasional charitable donations? So should you regard people who support the murder of children in the name of God.
Steve: When you look at the actual behavior of these people (and I don’t know these people i particular, but I know and have been around theologically conservative Christians my entire life)
It isn’t at all clear what you mean. You’re on a Catholic site (so I assume). I am talking about fundamentalists, who are protestants. Catholic enthusiasts are certainly not people to my liking, but they tend to be less crazy in degree and number.
Steve: In the present day, the strongest and most work being done to stop things such as human trafficking and child sexual abuse are being done primarily (although not exclusively) in most parts of the word by just such persons.
An absolute joke. Fundamentalist attitudes are a major contributor to sexual violence. Research in fact shows that perpetrators of rape and child molestation tend to be socially conservative. No surprise to me, when one hears fundamentalists ranting about women they don’t like are “whores”, and that it’s their own fault when if get are assaulted. It’s also no surprise when one reads that they believe that Moses commanded the murder of the men and boys of a tribe, and the taking of the virgins for the purpose of rape.
Steve: At worst, they are guilty of muddled thinking or a lack of theological sophistication in interpreting Scripture.
What they are guilty of is thinking that the murder of children and babies can ever be justified, or even other innocents.
Steve: how is parsing the definition of the word “genocide” and trying to define who was secular in describing the actions and motivations of people directly responsible for the death of millions of people carried out in a systematic way any different or better than the “casual justification of genocide” that you reference?
Are you serious? You attempt to tar secularists by associating them with people with whom they have nothing in common, and then you complain about me defining what is and is not secular?
Steve: Spend some time around some of these folks
As likely as I am to spend time around other people who reads about the murder of children and says: “I agree!”
Steve: and while you are likely to see plenty of human weakness and hypocrisy
No kidding.
Steve: . To be sure there are some pockets of scary “Christianity” (think Westboro Baptist or snake-handlers), they exist on the fringe of the Christian world, not in the heart of it.
I didn’t say fundamentalists were the heart of the Christian world. They’re a rather small minority among Christians worldwide. But if you really think that fundamentalists offer “some of the best of what humanity has to offer”, well, I simply have no words for that.
August 29th, 2012 | 12:02 pm
Wow doubling down on parsing what genocide and secular mean – really does that advance the point you are trying to make (whatever that actually is)?
If you wonder what the effect of the beliefs of “Christian fundamentalists” (a term you are using far too broadly – if it means that everyone who takes the teachings of Scripture seriously and in some ways authoritative for faith and live, then count me in – but the word really has a specific meaning tied to a specific historical context in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and if that is how it is defined then I am not a fundamentalist) are on their morality it isn’t hard to discover that. The morality and behavior of “Christian fundamentalists” is on display for the world to see and as is the case with all of humanity, it is a decidedly mixed bag. There is plenty of good and bad morality and behavior to see. I wouldn’t hold you responsible for Stalin’s behavior and morality, even if the two of you share certain aspects of belief about religion. So why bake everyone who shares aspects of belief about the Bible in one big pie? The blind spots, straw men and inconsistencies here are pretty telling.
The original point of the post was about the increasing reality of Biblical illiteracy in American society (by Biblical illiteracy he speaks of the just a general knowledge of what the Bible says, apart from what it means, how it is interpreted or should or should not be applied to individual lives and society). I find that reality to be bad for society, there is a lot that is lost in that deterioration that is incredibly valuable. I also find that to be an entirely uncontroversial assertion.
So for that to degenerate into a screed against “Christian fundamentalism” and word games about what genocide and secular mean is overwrought to say the least.
Methinks you are seeing dragons where there no dragons.
August 29th, 2012 | 6:30 pm
Steve: Wow doubling down on parsing what genocide and secular mean – really does that advance the point you are trying to make (whatever that actually is)?
Why should I be embarrassed that I pointed out to you the correct definition of ‘genocide’? It does not advance my point, but what then? It’s an annoyance to me when people misuse words like genocide. Or terrorism. That only helps people who like to claim that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.
Steve: If you wonder what the effect of the beliefs of “Christian fundamentalists” (a term you are using far too broadly
No, I do mean people who take the Bible literally and regard it as inerrant. Hence the reference to the Amalekites. Any non-fundamentalist can easily dispose of this horrid piece of Scripture, but a fundamentalist has bound himself to regard the Bible as inerrant and literal, and is hence obliged to approve of genocide and the murder of children.
Steve: I wouldn’t hold you responsible for Stalin’s behavior and morality, even if the two of you share certain aspects of belief about religion. So why bake everyone who shares aspects of belief about the Bible in one big pie?
Why? Because I didn’t. I specifically targeted people who look at Biblical atrocities and say: “This is the right thing to do.”
Steve: The original point of the post was about the increasing reality of Biblical illiteracy in American society. I find that reality to be bad for society
And I agreed with you – pointing out that there are parts of the Bible that are ennobling, like the story of the Good Samaritan. This wouldn’t be a problem if people took the good and disregarded the bad, but you nor I can deny that there are significant numbers of Americans who are fundamentalists who believe that the Bible should be taken literally and as inerrant.
August 31st, 2012 | 2:13 am
Steve:
“When you look at the actual behavior of these people (and I don’t know these people i particular, but I know and have been around theologically conservative Christians my entire life) – there isn’t any sort of whiff of genocide (or normative violence) in their lives.”
Perhaps we should be glad that they don’t think there are any populations deserving of divinely-ordered genocide living around them.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact