Summary and Remarks Concerning Larry Alex Taunton's "Listening to Young Atheists: Lessons for a Stronger Christianity"

An old school friend of mine posted this link to an article on Facebook that appeared in The Atlantic. My first thought was, “This should be an interesting attack against Christianity.” Then, I looked at the title again, and noticed that it had the tagline “Lessons for a Stronger Christianity.” This left me puzzled, because The Atlantic is not known as being a Christian publication, further, it’s much left-of-center, especially in areas conflicting with evangelical/fundamental beliefs. Surely, The Atlantic, in my mind at least, would never publish an article that would challenge Christians, right? After all, isn’t going to church supposed to take care of all that? Isn’t church where one goes to get preached at? Further, according to Christians, aren’t Atheists simply arrogant, hateful, misguided abhorrents to society? If they’d just go to church like they’re supposed to, then they’d see that God is real. If they’d go to church, then the world wouldn’t be so messed up. After all, it was Atheists who have sparked the modern world’s revolutions, most notably the French Revolution, of which I’ve been slogging through over at Clio’s Lessons for more than a year now. If they just realized the foolishness of their position, then they’d reject their stance, and turn to Christ. Therein lies the problem. Who is showing them Christ?

Larry Alex Taunton’s article should be a bombshell. No, let me restate that, it should be a hydrogen bomb. It should cause deep, spirit-led, heartfelt sorrow. It should cause all who profess Christianity to examine themselves, whether they be in the faith, as II Corinthians 13:5 states. It won’t. Modern American Christianity is largely confused. This should come as no surprise to the Bible-believer, because such confusion was prophesied long before America even existed as a nation. Much of the epistles warn against such confusion, but it happened, and is happening anyway. The situation is all too common. Some great teacher, who in many cases has a great heart, arrives on the scene saying amazing things in an incredible way. This man has what seems to be truth, and he definitely has love, so what could possibly go wrong? We should just trust God that He put us under the teacher’s voice. Who are we to question the man of God? Further, this is the way we’ve always done it. It’s tradition, and no one messes with tradition. Especially not an atheist. It’s the atheist who needs to get right, not us Church-going Christians. Mr. Taunton’s article very carefully reveals this very idea/practice as being in fact the problem itself.

Mr. Taunton’s work , which can be seen here, has brought him face to face with atheists, skeptics, agnostics, and many professing Christians. He is attempting to calmly proclaim Christ to an increasingly stormy world. Recently, as his article points out, he and his foundation did a study trying to uncover what he calls “The New Atheists” motives. When did they become Atheist? Why did they choose Atheism? It was questions like these that uncovered many seemingly unrelated statements, that he eventually concluded were in fact all related. Mr. Taunton foreshadows the very heart of the matter when he first quotes Michael, a poli-sci major from Dartmouth, “I really can’t consider a Christian a good, moral person if he isn’t trying to convert me.”  This is the main point, and focus around which all other issues arise. Michael, an atheist, has got it right! In this vein, those professing Christianity have greatly erred, and are in fact part of the ever-growing problems affecting their sacred establishments. After quoting Michael, Mr. Taunton then sets off to prove this point.

Taunton and his team issued a challenge across social media aimed at challenging college student led atheist groups. The response was overwhelming as many across the spectrum responded to the simple request, “Tell us your journey to unbelief.” One such young-man, Phil, greatly touched Taunton. His remarks revealed much that churches just don’t understand, or perhaps in many situations, refuse to understand. Phil was raised in a Methodist church, a church, by his own admission, that he liked. It was a contemporary-style church, but it was not the style that impressed Phil, it was his youth pastor’s, Jim,  heart for and knowledge of the Bible. Phil recalls being able to ask questions, no matter how great or small, during a Bible study setting. He began to realize that Jim would always search the scriptures for an answer. If he knew the answer, great, and if he did not at the moment, Jim would search to find one. Jim simply paid attention, and sought out the Bible. This, however, was not good enough for “growth.” (Numerical growth, not spiritually maturing growth – there is a difference, but more on that later). Jim was told to teach less, and become more of a fun guy in order to attract more numbers. When Jim refused, Phil lost his youth pastor. In Jim’s place the church hired, according to Phil’s testimony, Savannah, a pretty, young girl, “…[who] knew nothing about the Bible.” The numbers began rolling in, but Phil was out. Not out of the church, he still attended, but he attended as an atheist until he left for college. Using this story, Taunton outlines 7 serious issues to which any and all professing Christians should pay attention.

First, most atheists in Taunton’s study attended church. They became atheists in reaction to Christianity alone, nothing else.

Second, those churches had at best an ambiguous message. Messages about being good, or doing good in society (aka Social Gospel) littered the testimonies. Churches were often about their, that is the organization’s, reforming an individual, not Christ’s doing the reforming. No connection was made between Christ and the person’s life, as the Bible states. Taunton recalls Stephanie, a Northwestern student’s remarks, which reveal why she left Christianity. She saw, at best, little incentive to stay in the church, if Christ could not reform the lives of those attending. Taunton further points out that this was not just an isolated comment, but one that was restated often.

Third, churches were giving superficial answers to serious questions. As an educator, I have witnessed this one first hand. A former student of mine recently nailed me with a series of very pertinent questions. He had been asking family, teachers, and pastors the same series of questions for about a year before he reconnected with me. When I started to take the time to show him Biblically the answers he so craved, more questions came. We spent two long evenings, and countless other chats over the last year digging, one on one, into the Bible. I at one point asked him why he hadn’t found any answers yet, he replied with two heartbreaking comments, “I was told that I was thinking too deeply about these things.” and, “I just need to trust by faith that what I’m being told is true.” Both responses reveal the problem Taunton is illustrating. The school and church is not one that preaches social gospel. It would not be claimed by the New Evangelicals or Neo Orthodox realm. It is, as they proclaim Fundamental, Bible-Believing. The reality, however, is that they practice much of the numbers game as well as New Evangelical or Neo Orthodox thought. When the tough questions are asked, those in leadership run, because as Phil pointed out about Savannah, they don’t know the Bible. The students in Taunton’s study all reveal that they found church to be a place of “…shallow, harmless, and ultimately irrelevant people.” They draw this conclusion, especially in the early adult years, from the fact that no one in their professing Christian circles knows how to answer life’s serious questions.

Fourth, my previous comments would seem to have an irreverence for Pastors, Missionaries, and Teachers in the church. It would also seem that these students-turned-atheists have such irreverential attitudes toward church leadership. That’s what someone in those positions of authority would have you believe at least. The reality is much more eye-opening. Taunton has debated many atheists in his lifetime, one of whom was the most antagonistic atheists of his time, Christopher Hitchens. After a debate in 2010, Taunton asked Hitchens why he didn’t attempt to “savage” him on the stage. Hitchens reply is loaded with insight, “Because you believe it.” It was in this paragraph  that Michael from Dartmouth’s quote about good, moral Christians trying to convert him was stated, thus revealing that only a few Christians are due respect. All others claiming to follow Christ are then called out. The atheist, as I have experienced, and Taunton points out, have the utmost respect for those who truly, and ”…’unashamedely’ embraced Biblical teaching.” It is only those who are not ashamed of the gospel of Christ that earn the atheists respect. Those wishy-washy forms incur wrath, as they should. Taunton shows that this is true not just across the college-aged spectrum, but also quotes famous magician Penn Jillette’s now well-known comments, “I don’t respect people who don’t proselytize. I don’t respect that at all. If you believe that there’s a heaven and hell and people could be going to hell or not getting eternal life or whatever, and you think that it’s not really worth telling them this because it would make it socially awkward…. How much do you have to hate somebody to believe that everlasting life is possible and not tell them that?” No, there’s not a disrespect or irreverence to these leaders, that is unless they’re so ashamed of Christ as to not proclaim the truth to a lost and dying world. In that case, the atheist is absolutely correct in his antagonistic reply to the weak-minded, social clubs that call themselves “churches.” I concur.

Fifth, Taunton states that ages 14-17 are decisive. As a former High school student I couldn’t agree more. I’d, however, further add that each and every year after 17 the young person becomes exponentially more difficult to reach. Not impossible, but incomprehensibly more difficult. (One can only say such a comment if one has been out “proselytizing.” Otherwise, one would never know this reality in its fullest sense). High school students are not stupid. They often ask better, though simpler, questions about life than adults. They just want to know so much. When they don’t find the answers in one area, by default they look for answers in another area. In today’s age of information at your fingertips, this becomes a serious battle for parents, teachers, etc…. Half-baked answers just won’t suffice. Laziness will soon be exposed. Thus the Bible’s comments about Studying to shew thyself approved or Proving all things and holding fast that which is good. If a Christian doesn’t do these things, what good is he in helping others find truth? Wouldn’t you reject someone who can’t answer your questions on any matter? Teens are no different.

Sixth, emotions are real, and for ages 14-17 they are very serious, often leading to life-changing decisions. Typically in Christian youth rally’s or conferences a type of emotionalized message is preached. Those speakers understand that if they can affect the teenagers emotions, then they can effect an outcome. Often scores of teary-eyed teens flood forward for an alter call, and make decisions about any number of issues. I am not against going straight for a person’s heart, but one must understand that there is a proper way to do so. I’ve had people start crying on the street after I’ve shared the Law with them. This is good, “Godly Sorrow”, not created by my words, but by their own admission to being guilty under God’s Law. That Godly Sorrow, as the rest of the verse states, leads to repentance to Salvation not to b repented of…. II Cor. 7:10. What often transpires, however, at one of these youth events is a ramped up emotionalism that produces numbers of responses. Some of the responses are good, but the majority are nothing more than sensationalized feelings. Speaking from both sides of the coin, I, as a student went forward for the very same things others did. Usually within a week or so, however, the emotion wore off, and I’d be back at whatever it was about which I was so remorseful. That seemed to be the case with others around me too, and I just accepted it as normal. Then I started to notice that I would go further into whatever sin it was that caused me so much angst, and the next time I’d hear an emotion-laced plea, it fell upon deaf ears. I’d become hardened. Not only did I become hardened, I rejected what was being preached. Once I finally understood that Christ overcame the world, sin, death, and hell, and that He wanted to do that for me and in my life, then I realized how wicked I was. Then I was in agreement with God about sin, and then I turned from sin (In repentance to God), and toward Christ (In Faith). This ultimately vital truth is not widely used anymore. It does not produce numbers. Men love darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. It is not enough to point out in an emotional way what sin is. One must give truth to the person who is broken about sin, and compel them to repent from their sin, and turn to Christ. In this case emotions are often present, but emotions without truth properly applied leads to despair when the feeling disappears. Teens more often than not become jaded after a series of emotional responses, and then reject what they think is Christianity. Taunton does not go into this type of detail. Instead he gives witness to abusive relationships, and how they affected the atheists in his study. He metions two cases in which scarred girls rejected a god in whom they thought inflicted pain upon mankind. Their emotions are/were real, and must be handled accordingly. One should understand that these emotionally abusive situations can and do occur in religious settings. (eg. Pastors threatening parents or students, who have experienced some form of wickedness done by the church leadership. The news is all too full of such events).

Finally, Taunton points out that the internet has become an immense tool in teens converting to atheism. The internet is a double-edged sword. When used correctly, it is a very helpful instrument. When used incorrectly, it leaves permanent damage. It would be faulty, however, to blame the internet for causing teens to become atheists. Much as it is faulty in stating that a knife killed a person. The tool has to be willfully used in order for it to be effective. In spite of that, accidents do occur. It is how one responds to the willful or accidental usage of a tool that matters. Let me illustrate my point further. Two teens are doing a research project for school. They both pick the same topic, Atheism. Both claim to be Christians. Both students, Jack and Jill, research the same information, but Jack’s work leads him into atheism, whereas Jill’s work leads her into a deeper understanding of Christ. What was the difference? They both used the same material, but arrived at vastly different conclusions. Jack, who at the beginning professed to be Christian, had a weak, at best, knowledge of the Bible he claimed to follow. Jill, on the other hand, had a strong foundation in the Bible, and was not fazed by the material she researched. She had been properly, Biblically taught the answers to life’s serious questions. When those questions came, she did not flinch. Jack, however, did. The tool did not lead him into atheism, it just revealed that the seed of God’s Word had not taken root in his heart. Jack’s willful choice led him into atheism, not the internet. Jill’s willful choice to follow Christ, kept her from espousing atheism. Thus, when both used the same materials, one used the information correctly, and one used it incorrectly. There are many tools in the world today, much of them online. The parent must be aware of this reality. Further, the parent must be aware of what state the child’s heart is in. This is a present, active, always wary necessity for each and every parent. It does not mean that such parental action will make their child a Christian. It means that a parent must, relying upon Christ, raise their children in scriptural nurture and admonition. When, not if, the serious questions arise, the parent (as commanded by the Bible in hundreds of ways), should teach and train. If that is done properly, the child-become-teen, should not be afraid to answer boldly, and scripturally.

In Taunton’s conclusionary remarks, the makes this powerfully condemnatory last remark, “That these students were, above all else, idealists who longed for authenticity, and having failed to find it in their churches, they settled for a non-belief that, while less grand in its promises, felt more genuine and attainable.” He adds another comment by Michael, “Christianity is something that if you really believed it, it would change your life and you would want to change [the lives] of others. I haven’t seen too much of that.” [Emphasis mine]. What has happened!? Atheists seem to understand something that most professing Christians miss, or refuse to understand. They understand that Christianity, as we know it in modern America, is no longer changing lives, nor does it care to affect the lives of those around them. To add my final thought to the article, one that I and others often use when dealing with professing Christians – “What are you doing with it? If nothing, as Penn Jillette illustrates, why do you hate me so much that you want me to go to Hell? Do you really believe Christ then? Do you really love Him? Has your life been changed by Him?” Well, has it?

Dialoguing Logically With A Sin Nature Proponent

We have endeavored on this website to explain many of the hangups concerning the “doctrine” of sin nature, but one thing we have not yet done is explained what is meant by sin nature, and how that definition is logically understood. From that logical framework other doctrines in Christianity invariably must be affected. Tim has often told me that once he understood sin nature, and all of its side effects, the Bible opened up to him in a way that he’d never thought possible. I must agree with him, because indeed, my own personal Bible study profoundly changed once I understood the issues surrounding sin nature. It seems every day something new is revealed to me that I would have never realized, or would never have understood, if I continued to hold to my former opinions. With that in mind, I have had five separate conversations in the last 2 weeks about sin nature. Each discussion was different, as they all came about their viewpoint from a different angle, yet one issue was the same in all of the encounters, and indeed it is the same issue in every possible sin nature debate – the cause of sin.

Bear with me as I endeavor to logically explain the doctrine of sin nature, as is commonly offered in dialogue (Do understand, those who hold to this, in my opinion, faulty doctrine, have no Biblical basis for their belief. That being the case, they always resort to some form of logical reasoning to prove their case). It never fails that every time I, or anyone else, expose sin nature’s errors Biblically, that the sin nature proponent retreats into logic, and never offers scripture for their defense. Their arguments, though the words may be different, essentially all follow the same pattern, and is thus stated –

SN (Sin Nature): We all sin, because we have a sin nature.

Me: So, we have no choice but to sin?

SN: No, sin is a choice that we all have.

Me: Then we do not have a sin nature, because sin nature by definition means that we’re born programmed to sin, therefore it's part of our nature.

SN: Well, yes, because Adam sinned, we all sin.

Me: So, we’re guilty of Adam’s sin? Is that just? The Bible says that every man is put to death because of his own sin (Ez. 18:20).

Usually, at this point, the sin nature proponent begins creating straw man arguments.

SN: So you’re saying that we are sinlessly perfect?

Me: Why draw that conclusion?

SN: Because without a sin nature, we’d never sin, or mankind is born perfect, and could live a perfect sinless life.

Me: Why?

SN: Because he’d have no cause for sin.

Now, at this point a vital issue has arisen. The cause of sin. Biblically speaking the person convicted of sin always seeks a cause for sin that does not make him guilty of his own sin. Reference Genesis 3 for instance. God called upon Adam, and exposed his sin. Adam immediately shifted blame to God for creating Eve. Eve, now under pressure, implicated the serpent (Satan). Adam and Eve were both looking for someone to blame for their sin, or in other words, excuse themselves from guilt and punishment for their actions. God listened, and then he punished all three for their actions. Bottom line – sin is an action.

Me: What is the definition of sin from the Bible?

SN: (usually) I do not know.

Me: According to I John 3:4 sin is a transgression of the Law. That implies that sin is an action, not a nature or a substance.

SN: Yes, but why do we sin?

Me: James 1 tells us that we are drawn away of our own lusts, and when lust hath conceived it bringeth for sin.

SN: See, where did the lust come from? Our sin nature.

Another pause for a moment. Lust is not sin. James 1 is not calling lust sin. James is saying that lust can be the spark for sin. Much like a firestarter is not fire, but it can start a fire. Let me explain further. Mankind does have desires. God created them, and programmed them into Man’s nature. This may seem semantic, but it’s another vital issue. Man was indeed created to eat, drink, sleep, procreate. Eating, Drinking, Sleeping, and Sex are not sin, though each one of those actions can be sin. Here is how. When the desire arises to have sex, mankind has a choice: have non-sinning sex, which can only be done in marriage, or have no sex. The desire is indeed natural, and is not sinful, because it is a God given desire. Sex only becomes sin when man chooses to reject God’s boundaries for sex (marriage), and have it outside of marriage.

On that point I am not neglecting what Jesus Christ said about lusting after a woman. One must take what Christ said in context, and the context was adultery (sex outside of marriage). When He was talking about looking with lust, the implication was lusting to have sex with that woman. It is not a sin to hold the opinion that a woman is beautiful. It is a sin to want to have sex with that woman because she is beautiful, however. In other words, the temptation arises, and man has a choice. Think the woman is beautiful, and don’t sin, or think the woman is beautiful and sin. In either situation, there is a natural desire, but the natural desire is not sin until that desire is used to transgress God’s Law.

Me: Who creates the baby in the womb?

SN: God.

Me: God does the creating, and God created man with certain desires/passions?

SN: Yes, but because of Adam’s sin, we've all been corrupted.

Me: So, God creates man in the womb with the corruption of sin?

SN: You’re putting words into my mouth.

Me: No, this is the logical implication. If we’re born with a sin nature (A Cause for sin), and only God can create the baby in the womb, then it is God’s fault that we sin.

SN: It’s Adam’s fault, not God’s fault!

At this point, it must be understood that God is the Creator, and there is much scripture about God doing the forming of the Baby in the womb (consider Isaiah 44:2, Jeremiah 1:5, and Psalm 139:13-14). This is indeed, rightly in the argument’s context, what the Atheist uses against those who claim sin nature. They logically deduce God as being the creator of man, and the sin nature of man, because God is the only Creator according to the Christian. How does the Christian argue against the Atheist’s logic, if he holds the sin nature doctrine?

Me: Because of Adam’s sin, God then cursed Adam and his progeny by giving them a sin nature?

SN: Yes.

Me: Therefore, we sin, because Adam sinned, and God then cursed mankind for Adam’s sin?

SN: Yes.

Me: Then it is indeed God’s fault according to your position. Now, here’s my question, where in Genesis 3 did God specifically outline that a punishment for Adam’s sin would be that his progeny would sin?

SN: So, you’re saying we could live a sinlessly perfect life!?

The sin nature argument does not have an answer for this, which is why they will always revert to straw-man or ad-hominem arguments. They cannot give scripture, thankfully. Because if they could then the Atheist is right in arguing that God created man to sin as a punishment for Adam’s sin. This would be horrifically unjust, and God is not unjust.

Me: Again, I have never said that we would live a sinlessly perfect life. What I am saying is that there is no cause for sin, other than mankind choosing to sin. It is our fault, not Adam’s. Not God’s.

SN: But we sin, and the Bible says that sin came into the world through Adam.

Me: Yes, Romans 5:12 does say that sin entered into the world by Adam. He was the first man to sin, but he was not the first to sin, Satan was (without flesh I might add, ultimately sin is a spiritual issue, not a flesh issue).  Yet, Romans 5:12 does not say that sin passed upon all men. It says that death passed upon all men. That is part of the curse, and that is outlined in Genesis 3.

SN: Yes, and we all die, because we all sin.

Me: That’s what the verse says.

SN: Later in the chapter it says that all men were made sinners in Adam.

Me: No, the verse says that many were made sinners, many does not mean all. If it indeed does say or mean all, then the second part of the verse would have to mean that all were made righteous because of Christ. All are not righteous, however. If we’re all made sinners in Adam, then we must also all be made righteous by Christ. Yet, the verse says many choose Adam's way and sin, and many choose Christ and are made righteous. Sin is a choice, just like salvation is a choice. Either way, Romans 5 in total context is about death, notice how many times “death” is mentioned from 12-21, and contrast that with “life” in Christ. You can only have life when sin is overcome in/through Christ.

SN: So you’re saying sinless perfection?

Ok, now I can completely understand why this question arises at this point now. Though, it’s still not the Bible’s point.

Me: Can you Biblically repent of a sin nature?

SN: No.

Me: Then no one could be saved, because repentance is certainly concerned with Godly sorrow for your own willful sin. I can never be guilty, or feel Godly sorrow, for Adam’s sin. I did not do it, he did. If I have a sin nature because of him, and God creating me to sin, then I will never feel guilty for sin, it’s not my fault, it’s someone else’s fault. Further, if I “naturally” sin, because it is in my DNA, then I can never turn from that innate/inherent sin.

SN: So, then you are saying that man is born sinless, and can live a sinless life from birth to death?

Me: No, sin is a spiritual issue, and no man can stand against Satan. According to II Cor. 4:4, Satan is the one doing the blinding of man’s mind. He has many tools at his disposal to affect mankind, such as his own fallen angel army, the world, and the flesh. Man’s flesh is indeed finite, and very limited. It has those God-given desires, but Satan uses his tools to effect sin in every man’s life. Christ called Satan the father of sin in John 8, and it is indeed Satan’s goal to make all mankind his children by tempting them to sin. Neither you, nor I can stand against Satan for very long without the power of Jesus Christ. But you cannot have the power of Jesus Christ until you admit you’re a sinner, because you willfully sin. No excuses. Sin nature is an excuse. It makes someone else guilty of sin, not you. You’re guilty, because you choose to sin, but you do not have to sin. You choose to sin, not because Adam sinned.

SN: So, you never sin again after Salvation?

Me: No, you still have Satan fighting against you, which is why you are equipped with the armor mentioned in Ephesians 6. You are now equipped with God’s power through Jesus Christ to fight Satan, and win. You will no longer abide in sin, as you once did, and are on a new path through Christ. But Satan won’t give up, and his power is great. All he needs is a little opening in which to strike. When he finds that opening, usually when we’re at our weakest, that is, when our natural God-given desires must be fulfilled, then Satan attempts to strike. Those desires/lusts do have to be answered, either to gratification according to God’s boundaries, or gratification according to sin. The fact that the enemy can or does inflict damage upon you in no way takes you out of the army. You’re still a soldier of Christ, and are never to be killed by sin spiritually, because of Christ’s shed blood. But in the course of battle, you can suffer cuts, bruises, and broken bones. You just won’t indulge in them to death as you once did. Let me phrase it this way, can you go without sinning for at least 2 seconds?
SN: Yes.
Me: Life is made up of two second choices. If you can avoid sin for 2 seconds, you can keep avoiding sin when the next 2 seconds transpire. Do you think you could string enough two second periods together for 5 minutes?
SN: Yes.
Me: Now the point is that you can do that, willfully. But there is no one who has been able to string 70 years together of those sin-free 2 second time periods. 

It should be pointed out that if sin nature is indeed a Bible doctrine, and repentance is a Bible doctrine, then the Bible’s many commands to turn from sin would indeed be implying for sinless perfection. I have yet to receive a clear, coherent argument as to why this could not logically be the case. Further, I find it interesting the line of logic that tries to hold both positions to be true, that is, sin nature and repentance. Perhaps someone can offer me an argument that satisfies my question? Regardless, the sin nature advocate has to deny being able to resist sin for even 2 seconds. He would have to say that all of his works, good or evil, are sin. This simply does not fit the rest of scripture, and I offer I John 3:22 as an example.

The dialogue I have offered is not far-fetched. In fact everything stated therein has been spoken, or written, to me in the distant and recent past. I am not putting words into anyone’s mouths, that would not help anyone if I did. My point is to reveal logical outgrowths from the most commonly used faulty logic when discussing sin nature. I pray that it is a useful and God-glorifying tool to enlighten your hearts with His truth. Please, feel free to ask any questions or add any comments. I wholeheartedly and sincerely do not want to be wrong on this, as it most certainly has eternal consequences.

Nota Bene: I understand that the dialogue is not exhaustive. The essential points have, however, been covered. For more in depth questions about specific passages or other issues, please visit our Sin Nature Links page.