Listening to Young Atheists

Listening to Young Atheists – A reflection

     The June 2013 issue of The Atlantic magazine included an article by Larry Alex Taunton entitled “Listening to Young Atheists: Lessons for a Stronger Christianity” I was very interested in what the author had to say, even though I don't know any atheists personally.

    Go and read the article, but here is a summary of their findings: (paraphrased by me)
1. Most had experience with Christianity in some form, and reacted negatively against it.
2. Those with church experience thought that their church's mission and message were vague
3. They asked hard questions, and were given superficial answers
4. They still had respect for Christians who believed and practiced their faith seriously
5. Most chose atheism between ages 14 and 17
6. The choice to embrace unbelief was in part an emotional one, not a purely rational one
7. The Internet, specifically Youtube videos and forum chats were significant influences

My thoughts about the article and its findings:

    On point one, It is implied not stated that most of those interviewed came from Evangelical or Mainline Protestant churches. As these are the expressions of Christianity with the most adherents in this country, that is a reasonable assumption.  Orthodox Christians should absolutely not assume that this is just a Protestant thing, and our children will not have to deal with this. We're all human. Anyone's kids can be led down this path. I do not think I can emphasize this point too strongly. Most all of the atheists surveyed became atheists in reaction to Christianity or some experience within a Christian setting. In a country where it is so easy and acceptable to be passively irreligious, there has to be some strong motivation for a person to become actively or even militantly irreligious.

    On point 2, how well are we communicating the centrality of our faith to our kids? Whether the Liturgy is in English or another language, we must take time to explain and inform. Orthodox liturgies are beautiful, and rich in worship and doctrine. Make sure the lessons are being caught. We may also want to explain them to visitors. Can we as parents explain the doctrines of the Church, especially justification sanctification and theosis?  If we can't, we are simply a cultural artifact with nice artwork.

    On point 3, I don't think that this is as serious of a problem for the Orthodox. I hope I'm not wrong, but I might be. With centuries of Church Fathers who spent their lives pondering and inquiring into the mysteries of God, there are probably few topics that the Church has not already tackled. So any question should be answerable, if we are willing to do some reading. Our kids deserve to be taken seriously when they ask serious questions. This could even be a time to grow together as you seek answers to questions. 
    Evolution & creation?  Yes, the Church does speak to those things, but without the essentially Enlightenment & Rationalist mindset of some Heterodox groups. Sexuality? Orthodoxy has a very well developed theology of the human person, which includes sexuality. It is holistic, balanced and grounded in Scripture – like all of the Church's doctrine. What it is not is agreeable to the modern secular 'personal fulfillment uber alles' mindset. Biblical inerrancy?  Here the Orthodox may surprise many in that it is the Church, not the Bible that is given highest authority. The Bible exists within the life of the Church and is interpreted by her. The Orthodox do not adhere to rigidly literal interpretation, so textual disputes have less significance. This is not to say that there is not discussion or disagreement about some matters, but not major issues of doctrine. 
     N.B. I just have to take issue for a moment with the inaccurate equating, in this article and American culture generally, of Christianity with the Bible. Jesus created the Church at Pentecost (celebrated recently in the East) and the Church compiled the Bible. The Bible is part of the Church's expression of its fullness. Clear?  Moving on.
     Only one way? Orthodoxy has a very elaborate and rich Christology. Christ is the Creator and Redeemer of the cosmos. We cannot with our limited understanding declare with certainty who is or is not a part of Christ. What we do say is that the Church is what Christ gave humanity as the way to Himself, as our Rule and Practice.
     Purpose? Significance?  We bear in our humanity the Image of God! We are called by God to assist in the redemption of the Cosmos! How much more significant can we be?  Orthodoxy does not accommodate the ethical standards of any age or culture. The Church's ethical teaching is consistent, unified and clear. The right thing to do is not hard to know, it is hard to do.

     On point 4, how are we responding to visitor or inquirers?  I've heard many anecdotal accounts of cultural Americans entering Orthodox churches and being asked “why are you here (since you don't look like us)?” We had better not think that the Gospel and the Church belong only to people like ourselves. If we don't want to share the Faith, then maybe it doesn’t' mean much to us either.

     Orthodox evangelism is in my experience more subtle and less transactional than the approach favored by some other groups. “Come and see” is an often used invitation. Still, I think we could be more willing to accept as the article says “socially awkward"-ness  to initiate conversations about the Church. Always, of course with “gentleness and respect”.

    I have yet to meet an Orthodox priest who does not take his calling and the Gospel entrusted to him seriously. A priest is no more likely to become wealthy than any given Protestant pastor. Most every priest of my acquaintance works a 'civilian' job on top of their clerical duties to support their families.
    What about us lay folk? It is a lot easier for us to be passive and think 'that's the deacon's/priest's job' instead of confronting attitudes habits and behaviors that are not Godly. For my own part I admit to often avoiding this because I don't want things to be 'socially awkward', even with young people at my own parish.

    On points 5 & 6, teenagers are emotional critters. This is common knowledge. If something in or at the Church is creating an emotional situation for your kids, let them talk about it – even if they're angry. Take it seriously and never assume that they won't decide to leave on emotional grounds. For one example, what will they do if their heterodox or irreligious girl/boy-friend does not want to join the Church? Do we really think that our kids would never walk away from the Church for 'love'?  There are plenty of other touchy situations that could go badly if not handled with care – refer back to points 2, 3 and 4.  The teenage years are tough, with lots of changes coming fast and from all directions. We the parents and the Church should be the rock, the stable point that they can rely on as they work and grow towards the maturity we all want for them.

    On point 7, this is just one more reason why parents in particular, but Church family as well should know what the kids are up to online. I am glad for all of the Orthodox blogs and sites that communicate the Faith, and some that engage the atheist world view with the Truth that has endured. I wonder, I don't know, if we Orthodox Christians should seek out and engage the atheists on these forums, presenting the Church that takes the Faith and the Bible very seriously, that has a firm purpose and message, and that has the hard answers to the hard questions. If we do, it cannot be to pick fights and hit people with our doctrine stick but always to share the fullness of the Faith, the true Life who is our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ. 

Lord, have mercy on all who have been deluded by atheism, and have mercy on me a sinner.

Library Questions to Ponder

     While some of my colleagues and I were working deep in the stacks today, the following questions came up, which I present for your consideration. Comments & answers welcome. 

1. Do books contain knowledge even if no one is reading them?
2. What is the sound of a book being read?

     My answer to #1 is yes, even if the knowledge is unrealized. I am still puzzling over the answer to #2.

Saint Columba's Day

     This past Sunday, the 9th, the Orthodox Church in the west celebrated the feast of Our venerable and God-bearing Father Columba of Iona, Enlightener of Scotland (December 7, 521 - June 9, 597) Columba, also known as Columcille, meaning "Dove of the Church" was an Irish missionary who helped re-introduce Christianity to Scotland and the north of England. 

From St Bede's Ecclesiastical History of England:
IN the year of our Lord 565, when Justin, the younger, the successor of Justinian, obtained the government of the Roman empire, there came into Britain from Ireland a famous priest and abbot, marked as a monk by habit and manner of life, whose name was Columba, to preach the word of God to the provinces of the northern Picts, who are separated from the southern parts belonging to that nation by steep and rugged mountains. For the southern Picts, who dwell on this side of those mountains, had, it is said, long before forsaken the errors of idolatry, and received the true faith . . . Columba came into Britain in the ninth year of the reign of Bridius, who was the son of Meilochon, and the powerful king of the Pictish nation, and he converted that nation to the faith of Christ, by his preaching and example.

     Columba established the famous monastery of Iona in 563, from which came such great saints as St. Cuthbert and St Brendan the Voyager.

     Columba is also the source of the first known reference to the Loch Ness Monster. According to the story, in 565 he came across a group of Picts who were burying a man killed by the monster, and brought the man back to life. In another version, he is said to have saved the man while the man was being attacked, driving away the monster with the sign of the cross.

    St. Columba, along with St. Patrick of Ireland (March 17) and St. Brigid of Kildaire (February 1) is one of the three patron saints of Ireland. The three are buried together in Downpatrick in County Down, deep within the famous Hill of Down.

O Columba Spes Scotorum
nos tuorum meritorum interventu
beatorum fac consortes angelorulm. Alleluia

O Columba, hope of Scots,
By your merits' mediation.
Make us companions
of the blessed angels. Alleluia

Off the Cuff Movie Review Eight Below

Move over, Air Bud. The Real dogs are here.

      As I've mentioned before I do not as a rule like movies featuring animals, as they can be silly and full of sentimentalism. 2006's Eight Below is what a Disney movie starring animals should be. It's a great adventure story, full of beautiful scenery, suspense and emotional impact. Stories do not get much simpler than Man vs Nature, or in this case, Dog vs Nature. There are humans in the story, but the plot focuses on the eight sled dogs, which act like real dogs – no cute slapstick or funny tricks. The dogs in Eight Below are working dogs.

      The story takes place in Antarctica, where Jerry is a sled dog teamster, working for the NSF to guide scientists around the Bottom of the World. Just before the onset of winter, a geologist shows up at his base with a mission for Jerry and his eight-canine crew, to ferry him to a distant location so the geologist can search for a special meteorite. A storm is approaching as Jerry and the team set off, and we get some fantastic landscape shots as the dogs mush along (the film was mostly shot in Greenland, but the scenery is just as amazing there).

      Along the way, disaster strikes, as the geologist falls onto some thin ice, which breaks, plunging him into deadly cold water. Jerry and the dogs are able to rescue him, but must rush him back to base, into the face of the oncoming storm. With the weather only threatening to get worse, the base crew must evacuate the geologist to a hospital and themselves to a safer location. But there's not enough room aboard the plane for the dogs as they are forced to evacuate ahead of their planned departure, but Katie the pilot (Jerry's love interest character) promises to come right back and pick the dogs up.

      The storm comes down hard, and it becomes impossible for the dogs to be rescued. All the Antarctica personnel are returning to warmer climes and won't be back for months. A distraught Jerry has to leave with them, anguished that his beloved dogs were left behind.

      The second half of the film goes back and forth between the dogs' efforts to survive in the harshest of environments, Jerry's struggle to come to grips with what he sees as his abandonment of his team, and searching for a way to get back down South, even if none of the dogs have survived.

      Loyalty is the major theme of this film. Jerry is loyal to his dogs, and they to him. He says more than once that he owes it to the dogs to return and learn their fate. Jerry's friends (Katie, his pal Coop and the geologist) get together to arrange an expedition which they hope can rescue the dogs. The Eight Below are also loyal to one another, and it is their teamwork that allows them to survive as well as they do. There are several very touching scenes of the dogs' loyalty to one another as they fight to survive.

      This film did it right. There was drama and suspense, but not so much that little kids would freak out. But expect at least one jump scare. The scenery was fantastic. There was lots of emotion,both positive and negative, but the film avoids the sentimentalism that often infects animal films. The human actors also avoid overplaying the angst of the situation. The film runs just shy of two hours, but never drags, and there's almost no distracting sub-plot elements to draw you away from the main story of loyalty and survival against the odds.

What I'm Reading - The Next Decade

The Next Decade by George Friedman

      I am a near-daily reader of Stratfor, the geopolitical research firm that’s been called “the civilian CIA”. Firedman, who founded the company puts his geopolitical knowledge to work projecting wht the 2010’s are likely to bring to the world stage. He does not claim to have a gift of prophecy, or any unique insight; he is applying his knowledge of human political behavior and the forces that move nations. Countries do not always act like persons, and leaders are sometimes compelled by necessity to act in ways that they would prefer not to act.

      Taking the world by regions, Friedman outlines what he sees are the most likely next steps in the always-in-motion world of international relations. Nations always try to act, he says, in ways that benefit what they see as their best self-interest. The trouble comes when a nation cannot decide within itself what its best self-interest is. Speaking broadly, this is explains the instability we see and will continue to see in many nations. Libya, for example, is a nation composed of numerous ethnic and religious sub-groups with goals that are contradictory to one another.

       Friedman, and Stratfor, tries to take what I would call a pragmatic view of politics. They never disregard moral considerations, but these must take second place to the facts of human behavior and what works to achieve a nation’s goals. Or perhaps it is better to say that this is how they interpret the viewpoint of nations and their leaders, including my own nation. I hope that here in America, our leaders will always try to act morally, but according to Friedman, it is not always possible for them to do so. I don’t know quite how I feel about that. 

     How correct Friedman is in his assessment of the future we will see when it gets here. In the present, this book is an easy read, full of information that helps the reader understand what is driving national behavior in places all over the world. Whenever I talk with students at my school, I always recommend that they investigate Stratfor to get past the headlines of what's going on and understand why it's going on. This books does this as well.