Let the Children Read

In an otherwise enjoyable report about the phenomenon that is Harry Potter, the Economist correspondent praises J.K. Rowling for avoiding "the temptation to sneak ideology into children's heads by wrapping it in fantasy. C.S. Lewis's children's books... are spoiled by creeping piety."

Seriously?

One would hope an Economist correspondent is not disturbed by the thought a book with ideas. Historically, the story has always been the preferred method of conveying morality, religion and philosophy. If my literature teachers are to be believed, Homer's Odyssey was meant to reinforce the idea that without the gods, men are nothing, for example. The best books for the smallest children are full little ideologies such as parents should be obeyed, home is a good place to be, or that people who are different should be nonetheless respected.

Lewis is at its best when his writing is clearly Christian. Aslan's (a lion who represents Christ) death and resurrection in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, a boy's transformation and conversion in Voyage of the Dawn Treader, Aslan's appearance as a lamb at the end of the same book, a theological discussion with an evil witch (who insists that Aslan is not real, but a projection of cats the children had seen in her underworld) in The Silver Chair, Narnia's creation story in The Magician's Nephew and the apocalypse and paradise in The Last Battle are all Lewis at its best.

I should point out that the correspondent is an equally dismissive of Philip Pullman's "anti-clericalism," which causes his books to "suffer." I have not read his works, but my friends who have unanimously love The Golden Compass, though opinions of the rest of the series are mixed. Pullman is as blatant about his atheism as Lewis is about his Christianity. I suspect that this, in the same way, makes his books more interesting.

Perhaps the writer is offended that children could be exposed to religious (or anti-religious) themes? Pray, to what themes should a child be exposed? Granted, unlike Lewis or Pullman, Rowling's novels are not intended as an apology, per se. The Potter books are exciting as sort of a coming-of-age western with wands instead of guns, complete with a climatic magical shootout. But themes, philosophies, indeed ideologies persist, as they should be. These themes include self-sacrifice, the power of unconditional love and clear definitions of good and evil. No children's writer can be expected to write something without saying something about anything. The article even acknowledges feminist critiques of the series, but I wonder if a feminist might say the books are "spoiled" by creeping traditional gender roles. Some conservative Christians object to any book with magic, fearing that all such roads lead to demonic practices. Not every parent will approve of the Hogwarts hijinks, complete with snogging, butter beer and, something that made one parent I know very uncomfortable, perpetual lying to authority. Indeed, as the correspondent acknowledges, when a book becomes so popular, the critiques will follow.

The books that convey some sort of ideology, intentionally or unintentionally, must greatly outnumber those who somehow manage to avoid it, and many of those who try to avoid it command us to believe in nothing. Whoever penned the article should acknowledge that he or she simply is uncomfortable with religious ideas and speak with or censor his or her children as appropriate. Indeed both Lewis and Pullman were forthright about their intentions. While my own parents, encouraged certain books (as Christians, they happily read the Narnia series to my sisters and me), I am grateful that they did little to censor my reading. They did, however, keep the communication open. I hope to do the same with my children. I agree with and will attempt to raise them in the Christian faith, and Lewis will surely play a role. If they want to read Pullman, Rowling, Dan Brown or anything else that is clearly not bent on destruction, they may, but I will speak with them about it. Movies, TV shows, websites even commercials convey some sort of worldview, some of which I will find appealing and some I will find appalling. The fact that Lewis and Pullman have something intelligent to say about transcendence should be refreshing, and the fact that the writer seems to expect children to grow up without reference to ideas, or indeed ideologies, is baffling.

Children will be getting ideas from somewhere or something, all the time. Their teachers, whatever the form, will only in the rarest of cases be without bias. Part of their growing up will be deciding for themselves. Let's guide them, but let's give the a little more credit.

Where Do We Best Practice Evangelism?

A Facebook status went something like this:

"why is it so easy for me to talk about Jesus in America than in Germany?"

This was not the status of a frustrated former American colleague still fighting the good fight back in Freiburg. Rather, it was a German minister who my wife knew through an American Baptist church the old country. Another German, also in ministry, commented to suggest it was philology: some of the more "spiritual" words have negative connotations auf deutsch then they do in Yankee English. This may be true. But it is a German tradition to discuss in detail every possibility (even the most ridiculous - one of the few places we Americans are more efficient than our German friends is during a meeting. I was once in a meeting where no one was late - an important German value - but we spent a good twenty minutes discussing theoretical punishments for latecomers, dialecticly analyzing every contribution with no real conclusion. I'm sharing this because I find the example funny - not being a particularly efficient person, I did not mind, but I've already digressed...). Anyway, my hypothesis is that he found spiritual conversation easier in America for the very fact that he was foreign.

I say this, because I found it easier to talk about spiritual things in Germany. Yes, it is more of a taboo theme in continental Europe, but I found this to be freeing. Yes, part of my job meant, three to four days per week, sitting with German college students I had never met before to share the Gospel with them. I would try to bring a Gospel presentation into the first conversation. But the miry post-modernism forced any part of me that wanted to treat the Gospel like a sales-pitch to wither and be cut from the branch. (which suited me just fine)

My foreignness helped. The mere curiosity of why I was there (sometimes sprinkled with surprise that an American actually knew German) was an useful ice-breaker. I took advantage of the German willingness to at least consider all possibilities (my previous joking aside, I consider this an admirable trait), and it helped me even with those who had been trained by well-meaning humanists to believe my views were the basic cause of all human suffering.

In America, meanwhile, outside of a closer circle of friends, and especially with nonbelievers, I find it difficult to get past the superficial with anyone. I can do okay with what my father calls "news, sports and weather" conversations, but beyond that, it is simply difficult for me.

I agree, then, with one of my pastors, who himself moved to a foreign country to do ministry, that our biggest barrier to evangelism is the fear of alienation. Making your beliefs plain outside of sympathetic company will do this. Perhaps in Germany, I was a bit of an alien to begin with, and this fear was diffused. This is not, I should point out, a good excuse not to practice evangelism - Perfect Love ought to drive out all fears, and evangelism is both life giving and life saving.

This may not be true for everybody. And there could be other reasons why German evangelism came easier to me - such as my own personality or the fact that I was working for a missionary organization and it was my job to tell others about Jesus.

But often, I become nostalgic for those German nonbelievers, partial-believers, atheists, agnostics and others who spoke to me. It was not, of course, East Asia - there is much soil work to do before these seeds will grow. But our conversations moved from cafeterias to warm-glowing, smoky bars between satisfactory tastes of wheat beer, where the Gospel was proclaimed, discussed, analyzed and considered.

Seasonal Sensitivity for Our Atheist Friends

After watching Paul Rudnick explain how we get through the month of December without offending our Jewish friends, I began to reflect on another group of people who must feel isolated by all the blatant displays of religiosity: atheists. I read essays, articles and ad campaigns from various non-believers, and they all have one thing in common - they are ornery. I'd be ornery too if I had to suppress all these feelings of transcendence, thankfulness and hope and insist that I'm fine. Really. "Stop worrying and enjoy your life." I saw linked to Harpers a book by the usual suspects with some entertainers thrown in on essays to help them survive Christmas time. I'm looking forward to the Family Atheist Bookstore chain (perhaps with kitschy statues of Charles Darwin letting the little children come to him), but as our Atheist friends are surrounded by all this faith inspired hope and good cheer, perhaps we can help them feel more comfortable.

First, away with Happy Holidays. This is appropriate for inter-faith gatherings, but now that the atheists are out of the closet, it will not do. Holiday literally mean "holy day." And to say that anything is holy is implying something or someone has the divine right to set anything aside as holy. (While we're add it, I haven't heard a good atheists reason why we should have Saturday and Sunday off. If we had enough Muslims in this country during the industrial revolution, we would have gotten Friday off to boot) The truly all-inclusive greeting is "seasons greetings." As far as I can tell, atheists do not deny seasons ("it's nothing but where the earth is positioned around the sun! Away with your quasi-religious sensibilities!"). Incidentally, we should stop referring to other days of the year where we stop working to celebrate something as holidays. Can a season be a day long? For example, on Martin Luther King day, we can say, "have a good MLK season!" Just don't mention that he was a reverend.

Whenever you invite an atheist to your house, remember to remove any decorative religious symbols. Your tree should be decorated with simple, non-sentimental glass balls of no symbolic colors. Mangers and Menorahs are out. Stars are probably ok. As for as I can tell, atheists do not deny stars ("they are enormous burning fireballs scattered across the universe! Your gold plastic five-cornered statue could never symbolize that! Away with your quasi-religious sensibilities!").

Be sure to give gifts to the atheists in your life. They should be wrapped in paper with nothing descriptive on it. Perhaps a brown paper bag will do, as long as it is not the seasonal brown paper bags provided by some less ecumenical grocery stores this time of year. Be sure to write seasons greetings on it, and avoid the subject of why you gave the gift in the first place.

All public buildings should remain open on December 25th. I'm sure atheists would be willing to staff them. Saturday and Sunday too.