Christians are surrounded by a supermarket of worldviews, so it is not surprising that many have uncritically accepted many of these false views of reality. The Barna Group in association with Summit Ministries conducted a survey of practicing Christians to determine how they were influenced by these worldviews.

They found that younger Christians (millennials and generation X) were much more likely to accept unbiblical worldviews than previous generations. They also found that males were more susceptible than females by a 2-to-1 ratio.

They found that more than 6 in 10 (61%) of practicing Christians accept some ideas that are rooted in the “New Spirituality.” More than a third (38%) of practicing Christians are sympathetic to some teachings of Islam.
Apparently these practicing Christians do not see how some of their views are illogical. For example, more than a quarter (28%) believe that “all people pray to the same god or spirit.” Praying to Allah, Krishna, or the God of the Bible would obviously be very different, but that does not seem to many of these Christians to be a contradiction.

On issues of morality and values many also differ from orthodox Christianity. Nearly a quarter (23%) of them believe that “what is morally right or wrong depends on what an individual believes.” One in five (20%) believe that “meaning and purpose comes from working hard.”

A significant number also accept ideas promoted by socialism. Some (14%) strongly agree with the idea that “the government, rather than individuals, should control as much of the resources as necessary to ensure that everyone gets a fair share.” Others (11%) believe that “private property encourages greed and envy.”

This survey is but one more reminder that we need to be teaching sound theology in our churches.

A recent Gallup poll found that three fourths (77%) of Americans believe we are a divided nation. But we may not be as divided on as many issues as we think.

Dirk Philipsen believes that Americans actually agree on a lot. He says one reason we seem to disagree is due to “tribalism.” He lives in the North Carolina Research Triangle, home of the UNC-Duke basketball rivalry. His favorite teams are ‘Duke and anyone playing the University of North Carolina.” This basketball rivalry provides a glimpse into the problem of tribal thinking. It is OK in basketball but dangerous in politics.

He says you can fill a room with Tea Party members, Occupy Wall Street activists, and concerned Americans and find agreement. Imagine they were to have a conversation about values and goals without any reference to political labels and catchwords. You would find people concerned about concentrated power, out-of-control change, and concerns about a government that no longer represents the people.

For example, one study found that 9 out of 10 Americans (independent of party affiliation) would prefer radically less inequality. Half of them feel that corporations have too much influence. None of them want their tax dollars wasted. And only 19 percent trust their government.

He teaches economic history and reminds us that we have seen this tribalism (even when there is consensus) in other nations. They call it “externalization.” We blame the other guy and hunker down in our own positions. We divide into groups as “us” versus “them.” We end up building walls instead of bridges.

I think the task before us is simple. Americans need to decide if they will continue to participate in this tribal game that continues to divide us or reject the forces trying to divide us. We can find common sense solutions that will address the problems that concern all Americans.

The new book by David Green has the arresting title, Giving It All Away. He is the founder of Hobby Lobby and tells the story of his success and calls for Christians to give generously to churches and other ministries. He was on my radio program last week, and we talked about Hobby Lobby, the Museum of the Bible, and their court case that went all the way to the Supreme Court. The Green family has been at the center of all of this and much more.

Most people know that Hobby Lobby is closed on Sunday. They may not also realize that their stores close earlier (8 PM) than other stores. That means that they are only open 66 hours a week and compete with stores open many more hours. David Green did this so that his employees can spend more time with their families.

Hobby Lobby also pays its full-time employees well. Back in 2009, they raised the base pay to $10/hour. The next year they tacked on another dollar. They next year they did it again and then again. This is another way that the Green family values their employees.

I asked David Green if he ever imagined that he would have to sue the federal government. The thought never crossed his mind, but they did so when the HHS mandate would have required them to provide abortifacients for their employees. The fines alone would have cost him $1.3 million per day.

Much of his book focuses on giving and challenges Christians to engage in the adventure of tithing. He has three principles they use and encourages all of us to implement them as well. First, set your criteria. What are you going to fund? What are your priorities? Second, set your giving amount. Give the first fruits, not what is left over. And finally, set fire for the future. He also has thought quite about how to make generosity generational.

His book is certain to spark your interest and encourage you in giving.

What makes a society successful? With all the talk about trying to “Make America Great Again,” the focus has been on individual political and economic policies. As important as those are, we need to step back and ask the bigger question about what makes for successful societies.

Harvard historian Niall Ferguson has an answer to that fundamental question. His book, Civilization: The West and the Rest, puts so much in historical context: “For 500 years the West patented six killer applications that set it apart. The first to download them was Japan. Over the last century, one Asian country after another has downloaded these killer apps—competition, modern science, the rule of law and private property rights, modern medicine, the consumer society and the work ethic. Those six things are the secret sauce of Western civilization.”

Most of these ideas that Ferguson mentions arose in the West because of Christianity. In previous commentaries I have talked about how a Judeo-Christian view gave rise to modern science, legal principles, and even the Protestant work ethic. If these were the killer apps that made for a successful society, then certainly a Christian foundation for society today would nourish and develop these even more effectively than any other cultural or religious foundation.

Of course, here is the problem. Our secular society loves the fruits of Christianity, but is also ready to cut down the tree that provided them. We see attacks on Christianity and attacks on religious liberty. Christian values gave rise to successful societies, so a return to biblical values is an important ingredient some trend watchers have been missing.

Khaldoun Sweis admits that reaching your secular friends with the gospel is difficult, but there are things we can do to be more effective. He and I have worked together at the International Society of Christian Apologetics, so I was excited to see many commentators like Ed Stetzer and Eric Metaxas quoting him.

Khaldoun say we make a mistake “when we ignore the trends and zeitgeist of the times, and we make grave mistakes when we try to stereotype people into this or that category.” Sometimes the best starting point is to ask a question. When someone tells him they don’t believe in God, he will ask, “What god do you not believe in?” He says that nine times out of ten, it is usually a god that we Christians don’t believe in.

He has three principles we should adopt so that we will be more effective in reaching our secular friends. First, we must ENGAGE. He says we should sit at the table where we can have the attention of your secular friends. Connect with them by getting involved with Apple computers, with Congress, or with sports. We will be more effective if we sit at their table where most decisions are made for government, culture, media, and education.

Second, we must ENQUIRE. That means we need to turn the table but listening and asking good questions. The Bible admonishes us to “let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt” (Colossians 4:6).

He tells of a student who told him he did not believe in anything that is not physical. Khaldoun asked him if his idea was physical. After all, not believing in anything that is non-physical is a non-physical idea.

Third, we should EDIFY. That means we need to reach across the table and learn to love people redemptively. The gospel is ultimately about relationships, and we can demonstrate the truth of the gospel through love.

These principles will help you more effectively reach your secular friends.

In addition to my study of the millennial generation is my current research on the generation following them. Jean Twenge has given them the name iGen because their generation has always had digital devices like the iPod and the iPhone.

They were born between 1995 and 2012. In fact, the leading edge of the iGen generation are now graduating from college. In many ways, they are different from previous generations. Here are a few characteristics that Jean Twenge talks about in her book and articles.

First, it appears that iGen is more focused on work than the millennial generation. A higher percentage of them were willing to work overtime to get a job done. That changed perception might have to do with the fact that they experienced the Great Recession a number of years ago.

Second, the iGen generation is taking longer to work, drive, and date than
previous generations. This will no doubt have an impact on the workplace. Twenge observes that, “Managers who learned to be cheerleaders for millennials will find they are more like therapists, life coaches, or parents for iGen’ers.”

Third, the iGen generation is not as confident as the millennial predecessors. Various surveys show they are less confident about their career prospects. They have lower self-confidence than the previous generation at the same age.

The latest generation also seems very concerned with safety. They have turned out to be safe drivers. They are less likely to binge drink than the previous generations. And they want “emotional safety” — meaning they want to be protected from offensive comments and conflict.

Finally, they are obviously tied to their phones and social media. They are likely to socialize using their phones rather than getting together in person. If we want to reach this new generation, we need to see how they are different due both to their social experiences and their digital devices.

A number of columnists and political thinkers have tried to explain why there is so much hate in the public arena. Shelby Steele is a senior fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. He has some profound insights on “Why the Left is Consumed With Hate.”

He takes us back to the 1960’s when this country “finally accepted that slavery and segregation were profound moral failings.” So the left put itself in charge of righting this wrong, thus giving it enormous political and cultural power. It also led to the “greatest array of government sponsored social programs in history” that have cost more than $22 trillion.

He believes that this amounted to a formula for power that goes something like this: “The greater the menace to the nation’s moral legitimacy, the more power redounded to the left.” Soon they had compiled a laundry list of menaces. Racism was at the top of the list, but any other bigotry ending in “ism” and “phobia” also made the list.

This has created a problem for the left. America has made significant progress in racial issues along with progress with many other issues. And that threatens the left “whose existence is threatened by the diminishment of racial oppression.” It must find racism anywhere it can to make itself relevant.

The white-on-black shooting in Ferguson, Missouri got lots of media attention and even a comment from the president of the United States. During that same period, “thousands of black-on-black shootings took place in Chicago, hometown of the then-president, yet they inspired very little media coverage and no serious presidential commentary.”

Today the left is troubled by its possible obsolescence. There is not enough social menace to service its need for power. Also nagging them is the failure of so many government programs the left proposed. It is easy to see why the left is consumed with hate.

Last month I quoted from Victor Davis Hanson’s article on “The Origins of Our Second Civil War.” One of his explanations focused on our college campuses. His insightful analysis is worth more than a few sentences I devoted to it a month ago.

He argues that higher education helped split the country in two. For example, college campuses “competed for scarcer students by styling themselves as Club Med-type resorts.” This included upscale dorms with phenomenal buffets and lavish gyms. In fact, everything a student might want was right there on campus. This not only increased the cost of college but also shielded them from the realities of the outside world. They graduated with massive student loan debt and headed out into the world as snowflakes.

At the same time, universities were becoming more left-wing. Of course, liberal ideas have always had a home on college campuses. But they weren’t just liberal, but leftist. As I have tried to document in previous commentaries, there is a striking difference between the two. A liberal would allow different points of view on campus. A leftist would prevent certain views from being expressed and shout down speakers they did not like and believed were not politically correct. Doesn’t that sound like what is happening on campus today?

Finally, the curriculum on many colleges became therapeutic. No longer were challenging courses placed before students. Instead, many courses merely attempted to provide reading and study skills that should have been developed in middle school and high school. Hanson writes that so many students left college “mostly ignorant of the skills necessary to read, write, and argue effectively, lacking a general body of shared knowledge.” He, therefore, concludes that, “A generation ignorant, arrogant, and poor is a prescription for social volatility.” This is one major reason why we have so much division in America today.

These last few weeks have provided all us with an education about memories. How well do we accurately recall events that took place decades ago? What have scientists discovered about true and false memories?

We may never know how many of the memories that have been cited and even presented in the Senate Judiciary Committee are accurate. But we do have some data that suggests that the memories of people who testify in trials are often not as accurate as they might believe them to be.

Dr. Elizabeth Loftus is a cognitive scientist and law professor who has studied the subject of memory for the last four decades. On my radio program, I cited one study of 300 people in this country who went to prison for crimes they did not commit. They were later exonerated by DNA evidence. Of those 300 who were imprisoned, three-quarters of the convictions were the result of false memories.

This shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone who has followed other stories in the news. You might remember the story of “Jackie” that appeared in the pages of Rolling Stone. She claimed she was gang raped at a fraternity at the University of Virginia. The story was not true, and Rolling Stone had to apologize and remove the story.

Dr. Loftus has found that it is even possible to implant false memories. Her research team (while guided by an ethics committee) was able to plant in participants all sorts of false memories (being attacked by an animal, witnessing a demonic possession).

Various other researchers have discovered the same problem with memories. They suggest that our brain pulls together pieces of memory and sometimes creates memories of events that never took place.

This doesn’t mean we should never trust memories. But it does mean that if you are on a jury or if you are watching people recounting something from their past, you should be skeptical and look for corroborating evidence.