Psycology Today

With alarming new reports on American youth, what should religious leaders be doing?

With alarming new reports on American youth, what should religious leaders be doing?

Religion writers, like many other Americans, doubtless find a February report on the well-being of American teens from the federal Centers for Disease Control (.pdf here) nothing short of alarming.

There are religion-beat angles in these numbers. The question is whether religious leaders have figured that out yet. As we say here at GetReligion: Hold that thought.

Meanwhile, many news reports focused on the reported plight of teen-aged girls. The CDC survey in 2021 found that 57% persistently feel hopeless and sad, a 60% increase over the past decade and double the rate for boys, while 31% considered taking their own lives. The incidence of girls suffering sexual violence increased 20% in just the four years since 2017. Also, attempted suicide afflicted 22% of “LGBQ+” students.

Meanwhile, the media have lately put new emphasis on the troubled situation of boys and men.

Last August, Psychology Today said young and middle-aged men are more lonely than they’ve been in generations. A major consideration is that men are typically “happier and healthier” when married or “partnered.”

Internet dating is now a huge source of romantic connections, but 62% of users are men because “women are increasingly selective.” Men’s lack of “relationship skills” is said to produce less dating, more singleness, and thus less contentment.

That’s buttressed by a February 22 article from The Hill: “Most young men are single. Most young women are not.” New York University psychology professor Niobe Way’s view contrasts with the CDC, saying young adult men’s “social disconnect” means their suicide rate is quadruple that for women. And we all know distressed teen and young adult men are responsible for much of the national epidemic of mass shootings.

Young women, better-educated than men, “are getting more choosy” and are less likely to settle for problematic mates. Meanwhile, millions of young men have great relationship skills — with their digital screens.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Evil, sin, reality and life as a 'Son of God': What Marianne Williamson is saying isn't new

Early in the 1990s, I made the leap from full-time reporting in a mainstream newsroom — the Rocky Mountain News (RIP) — to teaching at Denver Seminary.

My goal was to pull “signals” from mainstream media into the world of people preparing for various ministries (key summary document here), helping them to face the ideas, symbols and stories that were shaping ordinary Americans, in pews and outside traditional religious groups. I wanted to pay attention to valid questions, even if traditional believers couldn’t embrace the media world’s answers.

In my main class, I needed a book that could open a door into what I called “Oprah America.” Thus, in 1992, I required my students to read “A Return To Love: Reflections on the Principles of A Course in Miracles,” by Marianne Williamson. Some of these evangelical students were not amused.

This, of course, leads us to that massive New York Times feature that ran the other day:

The Curious Mystical Text Behind Marianne Williamson’s Presidential Bid

The New Age author was drawn to an esoteric bible in the 1970s. It made her a self-help megastar. And now it has gone mainstream.

To my shock, the world’s newspaper of record dedicated large chunks of newsprint to the religious content — the doctrine, even — at the heart of Williamson’s life, ministry and her politics. I would say this story gets the equation about 75 percent right, but the Times team needed to back up a bit further in order to understand why so many Americans will — if told the roots of her thought — find her beliefs disturbing.

Hold that thought. Here’s the key question: How would the Times, and other elite media, have handled a feature about the beliefs of a Oneness Pentecostal or a faith-healing preacher who sought the presidency as a Republican? With this light a touch?

Now, here is a crucial chunk of that Times feature, which comes after a brief discussion of her remarks in the recent debates featuring a flock of Democratic candidates:

She was … drawing directly from a homegrown American holy book called “A Course in Miracles,” a curious New York scripture that arose during the heady metaphysical counterculture of the 1960s.

This is not some homey book of feel-good bromides. Rather, it is taken by its readers as a genuine gospel, produced by a Manhattan doctor who believed she was channeling new revelations from Jesus Christ himself.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Pope Francis gently tiptoes into the dangerous territory of those digital trolls

Pope Francis gently tiptoes into the dangerous territory of those digital trolls

Long ago, during one of the Key West, Fla., "Faith Angle" conferences run by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life (click here for amazing transcripts), journalist and digital maven Steven Waldman made an interesting comment about online trolls. The goal of those gatherings was to inspire dialogues between scholars and mainstream reporters about religion and the news. Needless to say, changes caused by the Internet were a big part of that.

Waldman is best known for his work as senior advisor to the chair of the Federal Communications Commission and, before that, as the co-founder and CEO of Beliefnet.com. Especially in its early years, Beliefnet was precisely the kind of place where journalists were, for better or for worse, banging their heads on the emerging realities of Internet life.

Everyone learned pretty fast that things could get really hairy (troll image, of course) when you threw open the comments pages on sites focusing on religion, media, politics, social issues, etc. Clearly there had to be some rules. One of the rules Waldman described to me that night in Key West came up during this week's "Crossroads" podcast chat with host Todd Wilken. Click here to check that out.

Anyway, Waldman said that one of the key rules Beliefnet staffers used when encountering fierce opinions in the comments pages went something like this. You could leave a comment that said something like: "According to the beliefs of my faith, I think that what you are saying is wrong and, thus, you could end up going to hell." That was strong stuff, but acceptable. Otherwise, the site's editors would have been saying that believers in traditional forms of some major religions -- Islam and Christianity, for starters -- would be banned from talking about core elements of their faith.

But here is what believers were NOT allowed to say in the comments pages:


Please respect our Commenting Policy