USA Today published a story on Christmas about people who take a “who cares?” or “so what?” attitude toward all religion. The article quotes a spate of folks who say they just can’t be bothered to get curious about God. In polls they are sometimes called “nones.” They are not religious, but neither are they atheists of a militant stripe. They just say spiritual questions do not matter.
A typical example:
For them, the Almighty is off the radar, like some tiny foreign country they know exists but never think about.
“God? Purpose? You don’t need an opinion on those things to function,” says Suhas Sreedhar, 26, a engineer working in a computer company in Manhattan.
Raised in New Jersey by his devoutly Hindu mother and staunchly atheist father, “I was saturated with both views and after a while, I realized I don’t need either perspective.
“There may be unanswerable questions that could be cool or fascinating. Speculating on them is a fun parlor game, but they don’t shed any meaning on my life,” Sreedhar says.
The question I had as I read this story was how I should interpret the experience of the spiritually apathetic.
John Wesley would say they are spiritually asleep. They are in a state of nature. It is no surprise that they have no awareness of God or the life of the spirit. That is the very definition of the “natural man” as Wesley would put it.
For his soul is in a deep sleep: His spiritual senses are not awake; They discern neither spiritual good nor evil. The eyes of his understanding are closed; They are sealed together, and see not. Clouds and darkness continually rest upon them; for he lies in the valley of the shadow of death. Hence having no inlets for the knowledge of spiritual things, all the avenues of his soul being shut up, he is in gross, stupid ignorance of whatever he is most concerned to know.
To Wesley, the blissfully apathetic about religion are not at all shocking. They are not a threat to religion or faith. They are the lost, the blind, the happy captives of the devil.
What do we in the United Methodist Church say? How do we understand the spiritual significance of this widespread attitude?
I am a part-time local pastor serving 
The doctrine of original sin is surely more humbling to man than the opposite: And I know not what honour we can pay to God, if we think man came out of His hands in the condition wherein he is now.
If we’re concerned about following the example of Wesley, then we need to ask ourselves if John Wesley asked, “What do we in the Anglican Church say? How do we [Anglicans] understand the spiritual significance of this widespread attitude?” Perhaps he did.
But he obviously moved beyond that question to another one. If Wesley asked anything, it seems he might have asked:
“God, what do you want me to do about the spiritual apathy of these lost, blind, and happy captives of the devil?”
It is hardly reasonable to expect “the United Methodist Church” to speak with a single voice on this or any other subject. There is no need to solicit an official pronouncement from the UMC before acting on such concerns.
It seems to me that Suhas Sreedhar is responding to the intellectual religious and anti-religious concerns of his parents. He is not expressing spiritual apathy at all. He is expressing apathy towards religion, which is of course quite different.
Sreedhar considers his parents’ metaphysical, doctrinal, and philosophical speculations, what he calls “intellectual parlor games,” as a waste of time.
Jesus didn’t waste his time on them either. So when it comes to dismissing metaphysical and doctrinal as a waste of time, Sreedhar reflects a remarkable affinity with the Master.
But Wesley’s possible question is key here: “God, what do you want me to do about the spiritual apathy of these lost, blind, and happy captives of the devil?”
Ron, your observation about the church is a good one, and yet I am still interested in the range of responses that United Methodists have to this question. I believe these are productive topics of conversation for us.
I suspect the Anglican Book of Homilies did provide some ideas and answers to the question, so I imagine Wesley did know at least an official answer. But I’m less interested in whether we have an official answer than how we would try to answer the question.
Since I don’t know Mr. Sreedhar, I cannot act on his situation, but this blog is a place of conversation, so I can solicit thoughts and conversation about his situation. My hope is that the conversation will help me and others when I encounter such attitudes.
As always, your comments are a good contribution to the conversation. Thanks.
John,
Thanks for this. I live in the “None Zone,” the Pacific Northwest. So-called because a majority answer “none” when asked their religion or religious affiliation. At the same time, they rate spirituality pretty highly. Most find their spirituality while fly fishing in a big river, whitewater rafting, hiking, skiing, beachcombing, camping, playing music, painting, gardening, performing, and any number of activities.
I don’t have an answer to your question, but I know that those in the “None Zone” can be reached with the message of Jesus – they just react negatively to overt evangelism. They are much more receptive to a message that lives what it preaches, and holds a meaning for them beyond a worship service. They are big on action, especially action they can participate in. Good words are just that…words, no more. They demand excellence, and our message has to somehow be heard above the background noise of their lives.
Thank you, Marc.
I read this kind of thought a lot when people are writing about young people. It sounds like it extends through the generations where you are.
Maybe it is because I just read Jason Vickers’ book, but that notion that a message has to hold meaning beyond the worship service catches my ear. On the one hand, doesn’t true worship by definition hold meaning beyond Sunday morning? And yet, I assume what you mean is that there has to be some sort of “practical” life application significance or some sort of way to take concrete action.
It is so interesting to me that we seem to operate across this worship/witness divide. For some folks, getting them to worship and involved in personal piety is no problem, but it takes TNT to get them into any kind of active mercy work. For others, mercy work is the only part that speaks to them and the worship, praise, and adoration of God in song and Word is a waste of time.
Piety and mercy. How do we hold them together?