The New Sins Of ‘Nonjudgmental’ Millennials Millennials are like the Moral Majority, except genderqueer. By Daniel Payne June 27, 2014 One of the greatest theological dialogues of the last 500 years is found between St. Thomas More and William Tyndale, the former a giant of the Catholic Church and the latter one of the more significant figures of the early Protestant Reformation. Tyndale’s translation of the Bible into English, and his work The Obedience of a Christian Man, was controversial and problematic enough that More, one of the fiercest critics of the Reformation, was compelled to respond. Tyndale responded with an “Answer” to More’s “Dialogue,” to which More responded with a “Confutation” of Tyndale’s “Answer” (the titles alone are worth reading). The tracts are rich with conviction, both utterly sure of their interpretation of the Word of God as it is revealed to humanity, both certain the other is not merely factually incorrect but sinning, going against the will of God to the detriment of the other’s eternal soul. There’s not much of that going around these days. If you speak to the average 20-something or Millennial about the concept of sin, you may be treated to a kind of quasi-Unitarian dismissal of the concept, a sort of uncomfortable rejection of the notion of ecclesiastical proscription in any sense: “I’m very spiritual,” you’ll hear a lot, “but not religious.” What this looks like in practice is generally a dismissal of accountability towards any higher power, or at least towards any rules He might impose upon His people: It is, after all, 2014. Yet the Millennials, having sloughed off the religious notions of their parents and grandparents—at least one-third of Generation Yers are more or less without religion—have taken it upon themselves to adopt a new set of mandates and dictates to guide their lives. Call them the “new sins,” a number of commandments by which one might stay on the narrow way. The old interdictions now cast aside, a new series of injunctions must be obeyed: and like most religions and denominations, adherence to these commandments is held sacrosanct, any deviation from them fairly blasphemous. Religion may be out for a large number of Millennials, but its vacuum has been more or less filled. Climate Change Dogma One of the most fervent dogmas to which the Millennial cohort now cleaves is that of climate change. Indeed, if there is a modern-day corollary to the Apostolic Age, say, and the apocalyptic predictions to which it was in thrall, it is in the Church of Global Warming, which is as certain as was Paul that the end times are at hand. More than two-thirds of Millennials agree that the earth is “getting warmer,” and 75 percent of those agree that man’s activities have something to do with it. Since Millennials are a firmly liberal voting block, this is rather unsurprising. A sin against God would have once demanded penance: prayers for forgiveness, a rosary, some good works, perhaps. A sin against the environment demands equal absolution: two-thirds of Millennials are “willing to pay more for products from sustainability-focused companies” (echoes of trading alms for indulgences). Eighty percent of polled Millennials also believe that utility companies should “generate at least 1/3 of their power from renewable sources” by 2030—not merely that this is a good idea, mind you, but that it should be required. The alleged threat of climate change grows every day, even if the dangers never actually materialize; and so we must absolve ourselves of the sins of burning fossil fuels. Thus has the God of Abraham been replaced by the God of Atmosphere; salvation by Christ is increasingly being supplanted with salvation by carbon tax. Why not? It is, after all, Science. The Church Of Gay Sex I don’t mean to imply, of course, that all Millennials have rejected religion in favor of a kind of angry, portentous neo-paganism, only that a great many members of this age demographic have more or less done away with religious belief, and in the absence of religion they have ascribed a quasi-religious morality to a great many other issues and societal affairs, some of them quite passionately. Yet another third of Millennials claim, for instance, that they have left their “childhood religion” due to “negative religious teachings about or treatment of gay and lesbian people;” nearly three-quarters agree that religions “are alienating young people” by judging gays and lesbians too harshly. Regardless of how one feels about “gay and lesbian issues,” it’s obvious that Generation Y feels very positively about them, and its members are repelled by notions and convictions about which many of their parents (aside from the gay ones, maybe) were untroubled. Indeed, shadows of religious conviction are to be seen within the LGBTQI movement’s rhetoric (the seemingly-biannual addition of a new letter to that acronym itself is a faintly religious custom; it is reminiscent of the struggle and the debate over Apocrypha, indicative as it is of a competing set of opinions regarding the One True Canon). Witness, for example, an excellent example of the average young adult’s position on transgenderism, the devout and pious thundering of Tyler Coates, responding to Kevin Williamson’s recent charge that Laverne Cox “is not a woman:” Click here for the rest of the article: http://thefederalist.com/2014/06/27/the-new-sins-of-nonjudgmental-millennials/
As a seventeen year old here's my take . 1. Global Warming (which is a misnomer near by the way) is scientific fact. I do not understand why some people continue to deny it. I think we need to do a better job of taking care of and preserving the environment. Barring the second coming of Jesus within my lifetime, I want to make sure the earth is in good this condition for my children and grandchildren. That said, the environment is definitely not my God and I do not approach this as a religious issue. (Not that I don't think the church should help take care the environment.) 2. What people my age think about this, like anyone, depends on who you're talking to. I have grown up in a staunchly liberal Christian family (my 80 year old grandpa is on of the strongest Democrats I know) in a staunchly conservative Christian area. Most of my friends are very strongly against gay marriage and homosexuality. On the other hand, during a various serious part of the camp I was at last week, one of the campers came forward and admitted that he was gay. Nobody treated him any differently. Everyone I talk to about it was excepting and supportive of him. All of them were in support of gay rights and gay marriage. This seems to be common trend when I speak to other youth at my denomination's annual conference is well. Personally, I am conflicted on this issue and I'm not quite sure what I believe about it. 3. This kind of formality in politics is nothing new. George Washington originally wanted to be called "His High Mightiness, the President of the United States and Protector of their Liberties,". Politics is definitely not my religion or the religion of anyone my age that I know. Most of us are not particularly happy with how our government seems to be working right now on both sides of the aisle. I failed to see you why anyone would have a problem with feeding the hungry and serving the poor. Isn't that part of Jesus's message? There will always be people who take advantage of the system. Does this mean we shouldn't try to help those who really it? In all, I think the author is sensationalizing my generation's views toward these issues. I have never met anyone that approaches them the the religious fanaticism he says we do.
"I have never met anyone that approaches [my generation's views with] the religious fanaticism he says we do." If the above represents what you meant to write, I have a quibble or two ... "Global Warming ... is scientific fact. I do not understand why some people continue to deny it." 1. First "global warming" is a term that was dropped by its proponents because the globe is not getting warmer. "Climate change" was substituted. And that is supposed to alarm us? As if climate has not changed repeatedly in the history of humans who report it to do so? Flummery! 2. Your failure to understand opponents of global warming is prima facie evidence of a form of psychological state essentially identical with that which afflicts the religious fanatic. Like you, the religious fanatic cannot understand why others fail to see what is so clear to him. If others report that proponents of global warming seem like religious fanatics, have you ever considered that such reports might be accurate after all? "Personally, I am conflicted on this issue [of homosexuality and gay marriage] and I'm not quite sure what I believe about it." No one will, of course, challenge your own report about yourself. However, the religious faith you profess is not conflicted on homosexuality and gay marriage. The fathers of the church are loudly opposed to both and for good reason — the Scriptures present God and His Son pronouncing against these things. Faithful Christians — whether they feel conflicted about the topic or not — at least accede to what God and His Son and that Son's Apostles tells us about such things. "Politics is definitely not my religion or the religion of anyone my age that I know. " Actually politics is everyone's religion insofar as it is the social dynamic that generates and imposes norms of behavior on everyone. Government and political processes within government are always in conflict with religion because they are both engaged in the same enterprise. For this reason, the impulse to unite government and a single complimentary religion is very strong. The notion that politics and religion operate in spheres that do not overlap or have any intrinsic relationship to one another is a modern fantasy, propounded by those who wish to relegate competing value systems to the sidelines. "Isn't [feeding the hungry and serving the poor] part of Jesus's message? " At best, it is a tangential part of his message, and a small one at that. "Repent, for the kingdom of God is at hand" is the core of his message pre-crucifixion (also the message of John the Baptist). After his ascension, you find "the gospel" summarized in its elementary form in 1 Corinthians 15:1-8. Feeding the hungry and serving the poor are among the good works done by those who have believed the gospel, but it is an error to equate those works with the message which is supposed to generate them. It's a very, very old mistake to snip off a sentence of our Lord's or of one of His disciples and to wave it in the air as "the gospel" or "the Christian message." For example, "God is love" becomes the validation of homosexual behavior, in case you haven't noticed this lately.
I pointed out in my previous post that's global warming is a misnomer here. Climate change is a much more accurate term. The changes we are experiencing are very serious. They're not like what has happened before. I simply do not understand why people continue to deny something that has a strong scientific consensus behind it. If the evidence so strongly supports something, I do not understand how it can be denied. I do not see how this makes me a fanatic. It's not like I'm going out on street corners railing about the problems of global warming and how we need to repent, or causing terrorist attacks against others who disagree with me. this is part of why I feel so conflicted. I understand the churches traditional stance on this, and put a lot of trust in with the fathers have to say. On the other hand, Christians have made mistakes before. During the Civil War southern Christians use the Bible to argue in support of slavery. Homosexuality is not a choice, and I have trouble grasping how a God who is pure love can condemn love between two people. Even if it is a sin, I fail to see what makes homosexuality so much worse than other sins, such as divorce. I agree the relationship between government and religion is very complex and that one should not just leave their religion at the door when they enter into politics. On the other hand in a secular nation such as the United States we cannot give favoritism towards any one religion as there are so many of them in the country. Personally, I think separation between church and state is best in the long run for the church. Otherwise you end up with situations such as the Catholic Church in the medieval era, where many people were in important positions in the church for political reasons rather than out of religious devotion. I agree that this is not Jesus's main message. I think that is best summed up by John 3:16. I still think helping others is a very important part of his teachings.
I think Fr. is talking about how modern atheistic youth treat politics (or lay things in general) in the manner of religion, because politics, religion, fundamental things in life are all related to one another. One can be a firebreathing pulpit-slamming preacher, even as an atheist environmentalist! You can still have 'mortal sins' there, because to man, questions of high nature ultimately resolve to the same expressions of heated fervor, fire, sins, prohibition, redemption.
BB, notwithstanding the merits of your arguments, your zeal sort of proves the article's point. My own opinion is that the very fact that "scientific" community felt the need to change the name from global warming to something as vacuous as "climate change" proves what a humbug it is.