Discovering, Abandoning, and Rediscovering God
Going out to catch a film wasn't unusual for me then, although as a newly married graduate student at Yale Divinity School working part-time at the library, I didn't get to make these trips as often as I wanted. The film I had come out for that night was one I'd been waiting months to see—a passion project that had haunted its director for decades and that was quickly turning into a box office disappointment, as such projects often are. My friend and I were the only ones in the theater. We were there to watch Martin Scorsese's Silence.
Set in seventeenth-century Japan, Silence follows two Portuguese Jesuit priests, Father Rodrigues (Andrew Garfield) and Father Garupe (Adam Driver), who travel to the closed island nation in search of their missing mentor, Father Ferreira (Liam Neeson). They hear rumors that he has renounced his faith. The fraught journey the two pious men undertake to find Ferreira becomes a harrowing exploration of spiritual doubt, theological tension, and the silence of God amid suffering.
As a devoted Scorsese fan, I was predisposed to love Silence. As a budding historian of Christianity, I found the film relevant to many of my intellectual interests. But as someone who had lost his faith, I also found the movie affecting me on a deeper level.
In the film's climactic scene, Rodrigues is ordered to step on the fumi-e, an image of Christ; his captors explain that renouncing his faith in this way would immediately end the torture of several Japanese converts. He then hears Christ's voice inviting him to trample His face, and to share in His suffering. Rodrigues steps—not in denial, but in love. Following this outward renunciation, he becomes acculturated and lives the rest of his life in Japan. But after his death, a secret is revealed—a small crucifix, which his wife hides in his hands just before his burial; it is a token of the secret endurance of his faith. And the fleeting glimpse of Christ suggests He was never absent, even in the silence.
I was overwhelmed by what I had witnessed. The movie is profound and capable of moving many people, but personal circumstances left me defenseless against its power, and I wept. My father, back in Australia, had just been diagnosed with glioblastoma, an aggressive brain tumor that would take his life that October. I had visited him a few months earlier, and the signs of decline were already clear. He had only just retired after decades teaching Italian; the injustice of it scathed me. It was the kind of thing that had driven me from God in the first place.
I wasn't raised in an overtly Christian family. I was baptized by a Roman Catholic priest a few weeks after I was born to satisfy the expectations of my Italian extended family, but we never went to church, and I hardly knew anyone who did.
My experience was far from unique. As Tom Frame has chronicled in Losing My Religion, the Australia I was born into in 1988 was already well into a pronounced religious decline. By the 1986 census, nearly 13 percent of Australians claimed 'No Religion,' an increase by a factor of four since 1966, and the trend only accelerated in the decades that followed. Frame notes that what had once been assumed—a common Christian vision binding Australian culture together—had fragmented into something more diverse. In many circles, indifference reigned. The hush around religion I experienced growing up wasn't unusual; it was the norm.
That hush was broken by the September 11 terrorist attacks.
IN THE MONTHS AND YEARS THAT FOLLOWED, I struggled to make sense of what happened that day. I wondered how people who claimed to be religious could commit such violence—how the mass murder of innocent people could have been one of their objectives. My questions led me back to reflecting on my own sense of morality. I began seeking answers to questions I hadn't even known I carried. What started as a search grew into a deep fascination, and this fascination shaped my teenage years and eventually pushed me into my career as a scholar of religion. As I read more and discussed what I was learning with friends and family, I found myself drawn to the core of my subject matter, as I understood it—the person of Christ. Regular prayer and a weekly Bible study became part of my routine; I became a youth group regular and a frequent church volunteer. Before long, people began to ask if I had ever considered a life in ministry.
At that point, I hadn't. My plan was to become an actor and filmmaker. But those voices grew louder in my ear. Could I be called? Was I meant to be a leader? Much to my parents' surprise, I did decide to pursue Anglican ministry. But when I undertook theological training, I realized that my simple, literalist faith was about to face challenges I had not encountered before.
'Challenges not encountered before' is sort of a specialty of ours. Think through hard problems in politics and culture with us:
Professors and classmates held views I found bewildering. They questioned the virgin birth, the historicity of the Exodus, large portions of the New Testament's authorship, and even original sin and the Trinity—and for all that, they still called themselves Christians. I began to wonder if there were other ways of being faithful than my callow, cramped paradigm had allowed. I started to gravitate toward more liberal voices like those of John Shelby Spong, Brian D. McLaren, and Rob Bell, and after a time, I patterned my beliefs after theirs.
I believed my newfound progressive faith was deeper, smarter, and more just than what it replaced. But at the end of my liberalizing arc, I was left with a God who never challenged me but who always affirmed me and my desires. In honest retrospect, I had not adopted a more mature and capacious framework so much as found a way to make religion into a vehicle for my very secular aspirations and insecurities.
Friends noticed the shift in my beliefs. A few confronted me, arguing that I'd been carried away into theological drift and moral compromise, but I brushed them off. I saw myself as a new believer for a new age—modern, and always modernizing.
I continued along the path to ordination, enrolling in seminary while the contradictions of my heart continued to heighten. My studies faltered, my spiritual life grew dry, and I stopped showing up to class. Personal tragedy compounded these problems: A close friend in ministry died by suicide. Grief sharpened my doubts: If prayer wasn't real dialogue, why pray? If evangelism was colonialism, why witness? If the creeds had no stable center, what did Christianity confess? If the resurrection was only metaphor, what was left to believe? Eventually, the seminary asked me to leave. But spiritually, I had already walked away—not just from the program, but from God.
Share
WHAT I HAVE DESCRIBED FITS A TEMPLATE known generally as 'deconstruction,' a process of taking apart the framework of Christian belief, either to by the end become free of faith entirely or to recombine its parts into a cleaner-burning moral and spiritual engine for your life. The term has grown common in Christian spaces over the past few years as a number of prominent Christian leaders have publicly undertaken their own processes of deconstruction.
Among the most well known is Joshua Harris, author of the 1997 Christian publishing megahit I Kissed Dating Goodbye. He shocked many of his former readers when he not only retracted the teachings of his bestselling book but even, in 2019, stepped away from the faith entirely. Similarly, Marty Sampson, a former worship leader with Hillsong United, expressed deep doubts about his faith before eventually declaring that he was 'losing' it.
But deconstruction does not always lead to departure. Some formerly conservative believers like the late Rachel Held Evans and Peter Enns have become emblematic of a deconstructive process aimed at reclaiming and reforming Christianity rather than cutting loose from it. Their work invites believers to challenge inherited assumptions, grapple with difficult passages of Scripture, and rebuild their faith in ways that are intellectually honest, morally serious, and spiritually life-giving.
Strikingly, Antitheist activists did not warm to these liberalizing trends within conservative churches, and they took aim at them just as Nietzsche did over a century before. Prominent New Atheist figure Sam Harris labeled this theological moderation dishonest, a means of providing cover. Christopher Hitchens saw liberal Christianity as a halfway house, a place where spiritual neurotics could cling to religion's comforts while abandoning its claims to truth.
For a time, I was sympathetic to the arguments of Hitchens, Harris, and similar figures. Rather than keep following the example of Evans and others, I stopped believing in God—but I found that I could not quench my fascination with religion's enduring power to shape the world. My goals evolved: I could not preach, but I could see a future delivering lectures to students interested in the same questions I was. I matriculated at Yale Divinity School and found that my frustration was only growing deeper.
In the classroom, I often found myself at odds with both students and faculty, many of whom treated religion as a kind of cultural performance similar in character to pop-culture fandom. I couldn't accept that. Religion was categorically different, I still felt—it was stranger, weightier, more enigmatic than a Taylor Swift concert. Even as an atheist, I couldn't rid myself of this sense of the unruly numinous, forever breaking out of the boxes scholars were attempting to place over it. I wanted it to keep it free—to maintain a sense for its awe, its mystery, its sacred strangeness. Its weirdness.
Share The Bulwark
And so I found my way to the weird students at Yale. They formed a small, eclectic circle of Catholic, Episcopal, Orthodox, Methodist, Presbyterian, and even Mormon students who stood somewhat apart from the Divinity School's prevailing ethos. They were often at odds even from the mainstream of their own denominations. I found them refreshingly authentic, intellectually rigorous, and remarkably kind.
My new friends genuinely believed in unfashionable dogmas like the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and they weren't the least bit embarrassed to say so. They challenged me to reconsider ideas I had long ago dismissed; in doing so, they introduced me to a deeper intellectual world and a more thought-provoking spirituality than was available by dint of the austere atheist humanism I'd lately adopted. A flourishing life of both the mind and spirit I had never fully encountered, even as a former believer. And then it was all around me.
The friends I found at Yale reminded me, in short, of what faith at its most serious could still look like. When I was moved by Silence, I was experiencing the culmination of what these friends gave me. It got me back to God.
My reconversion was not immediate, although the initial emotions were intense and dramatic, a religious experience such as I had not felt in years. It was theophany. I comprehended my dying father and my life up to that point. The tears came freely; I felt dumbfounded. When Silence's credits began to inch up the screen, I felt my spirit rising in tandem. I may not have been restored to the simplistic religion of my youth, but something new was happening. Or something very old.
STANFORD'S PH.D. PROGRAM IN AMERICAN religious history welcomed me just around the time my father passed away. Grieving and isolated, I turned inward. I still did not fully accept my nascent faith, but I found myself reaching for Christian apologetics I hadn't touched in years. In 2018, Stanford Magazine profiled me as 'an Atheist in God's country,' as the headline put it. I missed the church and envied Christians, I told my interviewer. Reading the piece later, I felt exposed and unsettled.
Former pastor Ryan Bell's 'Year Without God' was an experiment he undertook to see if his faith could survive a year without any spiritual practice or ritual. (It didn't.) I decided to reverse the experiment by going to church for a year. My wife, Kate, was surprised and cautious. I chose to attend a 7 a.m. church service, the easier to slip in and out without being engaged. I told myself I was just trying it out. But if you tell yourself something like that, there's a good chance it isn't true. And it wasn't. I was feeling something deeper, something stubbornly inchoate.
It was the closing prayer of Timothy Keller's The Reason for God that finally gave shape to what I was feeling. Based on the experience of a member of his congregation, he advised seekers not to pray, 'God, help me find you,' but instead, 'God, come and find me.'
So that's what I did.
It's been a few years since then. I'm now a deacon in the Anglican Church in North America with hopes of being ordained a priest. I've led Bible studies, sponsored baptisms, and walked with others as they've been received into our church. Friends and family have asked me to officiate weddings and funerals, and prayer and Scripture are now woven into the rhythm of my daily life in a way they never were before. Embracing their mystery while sharing their hope, I confess once more the ancient creeds of the Church.
My journey today puts me in the company of a larger social movement. Some are calling it 'the Quiet Revival'—a gentle but steady turn (or return) to Christian belief. Signs of it are emerging in unexpected places: rising Bible sales, a growth in liturgical worship, the unexpected global popularity of faith-informed media like The Chosen, the reach of devotional podcasts, and even Christian groups forming in Minecraft servers. The ranks of evangelists are growing to include former OnlyFans creators, student athletes, and gamers. My story is one of many recently about people finding God—or, in Keller's revision, of God finding them.
But beneath the talk of revival, there are real ambiguities and causes for concern. Within Christian circles, high-profile conversions become occasions for careful discernment and for conversations about signs of true faith as opposed to its cultural trappings. It can be hard to avoid seeing some recent celebrity professions of new faith as attempts at rebranding, as stunts, or, at worst, as ways to seek cover for wrongdoing. And the reality of our hyperpolarized moment is that it is growing increasingly difficult to separate religious phenomena from their political entanglements. As a church worker, I find the signs of renewal encouraging, but I find it necessary to greet them with caution. Great collective passions stir headlines, but they are no guarantee of lasting change. They remain vulnerable to manipulation by bad actors and to the familiar criticisms that have long been leveled against faith. Our spiritual hungers endure, but we should be careful about what we eat.
In his 'Manifesto: The Mad Farmer Liberation Front,' the writer Wendell Berry counsels: 'Practice resurrection.' It's a very fitting sentiment for Easter, joining the core of Christian faith with a panoply of symbols. It comprehends the small crucifix enclosed in the hand of the dead priest, and the tear-streaked face of the man watching the scene in a darkened theater. Resurrection, it is important to remember, isn't a simple return to a status quo ante. It is to reveal something that—though it remains recognizable—has been made new.
Share this story with someone who loves a good personal essay.
Share
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Hypebeast
3 hours ago
- Hypebeast
PORTER Marks 90th Anniversary With Landmark Celebration at ICONSIAM
Summary Japanese bagmakerPORTERis celebrating its 90th anniversary in Bangkok with a symbolic installation and immersive pop-up atICONSIAM. Rising six meters tall along the Chao Phraya River, the PORTER Landmark Sculpture pays tribute to time, tradition and craftsmanship while bridging Japanese heritage with Thai culture. Inside ICONSIAM, the brand has created an anniversary pop-up that invites visitors to explore nine decades of design. Exclusive bags, archival pieces and storytelling displays showcase PORTER's meticulous attention to detail and evolving artistry, creating a space where history and innovation meet. The celebration also launches the PORTER Bangkok Tour, a year-long series that will take the brand to iconic and unexpected locations across the city. Each stop will feature limited-edition collections, interactive experiences and special events that reveal new chapters of PORTER's legacy. The ICONSIAM installation is the first step in a journey designed to highlight craftsmanship, culture and community while engaging fans of the brand in Bangkok and beyond.


Buzz Feed
11 hours ago
- Buzz Feed
President Zelensky Finally Clapped Back At That Rude Reporter Who Asked Him About His Suit
Remember this? More specifically, remember when a reporter asked Volodymyr Zelensky why he didn't wear a suit, and it turned into a whole thing? Zelensky replied, "I will wear a costume after this war will finish. Maybe something like yours, maybe something better, I don't know. We will see. Maybe something cheaper." People thought the whole thing was "deranged." Marco Rubio couldn't believe it either. And now, Zelensky is back at the White House along with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, French President Emmanuel Macron, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, Finnish President Alexander Stubb, and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. People were wondering if Zelensky would wear a suit after that whole thing in February, and today we found out. He showed up wearing this: "First of all, President Zelesnky, you look fabulous in that suit. You look good," the reporter said. "I said the same thing," Trump said back. "I said the same thing. Isn't that nice? That's the same one that attacked you last time," Trump continued. That's when the reporter says, "I apologize to you. You look wonderful." Zelensky had the last word on this one when he told the guy: "You're in the same suit. You see, I have changed. You have not." Then the whole room erupted in laughter. As this person said, "Even Trump had to admit this was a great comeback."

Refinery29
11 hours ago
- Refinery29
With Denzel Washington's Co-Sign, Ilfenesh Hadera Became Highest 2 Lowest's Secret Weapon
Spike Lee trusts her. Denzel Washington knows what she can do. Now is time for the rest of Hollywood to wake up to the powerhouse that is Ilfenesh Hadera. 'Put me in, coach,' The Harlem-born actor said to Refinery29 in a recent Zoom interview. In Spike Lee's latest joint, Highest 2 Lowest, Hadera stars opposite Washington as Pam King. The neo-noir thriller, which is an adaptation of Japanese filmmaker Akira Kurosawa's High and Low, follows David King (Washington), a successful music executive who gets extorted by an up-and-coming rapper (A$AP Rocky). David faces the ultimate moral dilemma as he's forced to make a decision that could either cost him his family and legacy or his empire. Though the choice is ultimately David's, his wife Pam becomes a critical sounding board. She's the film's 'North Star,' Hadera said. Her voice also offers the thesis for the underlying message in the film: when did the art we make become less important than fame and riches that come with it? Like Washington, Hadera has become a regular in Lee's work. She first appeared in Da Brick, Oldboy and Chi-Raq and then landed a more significant role in the Netflix adaptation of She's Gotta Have It. She said his sets foster a freedom to be creative and fly or fail without fear. 'On a Spike joint, he keeps the same loyal, capable people around project after project. So despite the newness of it all on a movie set, everybody feels really relaxed and kind of at home,' she said. 'You don't always get that and you have to feel free as an artist to play and maybe not get it right.' And though the role of Pam King is a dream the Harlem-born actor manifested, she's nowhere new to this. With an acting career that spans 15 years, she's worked her way up the call sheet through dozens of projects, including Billions, Master of None and Chicago Fire. She's currently starring in Godfather of Harlem, which is heading into its fifth and final season, opposite Forest Whitaker. *Minor spoilers ahead.* Refinery29: There wasn't a role for you in the script initially. How did your role as Pam King come about? Ilfenesh Hadera: I saw that Spike had this collaboration coming up with Denzel on this Kurosawa film. And I was like this is incredible first for Spike as a friend and supporter of his, I know how much he loves Kurosawa's work. I saw that announcement and I was so stoked for him. And then, of course, I'm like is there a role for me in this? Spike actually asked what my upcoming schedule looked like so I was like, this might be a good sign. As I'm watching the original film, I'm thinking there aren't many female roles in this movie. I reached out to my agent, and asked if he read the script. And he very, like, bluntly, said, 'There's no role for you in this.' But I still held out hope, because Spike had asked about my availability. And then the calls from Kim Coleman, Spike's longtime casting director, started coming in, and the rest is history. It was such an emotional roller coaster. It's like a testament to the idea that closed mouths don't get fed, right? IH: Truly. I mean, I don't like to ask for much. Spike has become such a dear friend of mine, and he's kept me in work for so many years. He knows my artistic abilities. So, if he doesn't think of me for a part, I don't want to come to him who's given me so much already with hands out. I'd much rather him come to me and say, 'Hey, I've got this idea.' Maybe it's a smaller role, maybe it's the role of Pam King, which is a more significant role. But, you know, I always like to let him initiate conversations about casting. ' Spike trusts me. He's not gonna put my name in the mix if he's not sure that I can bring it... [but] it feels nice to know that I got the Denzel Washington co-sign and it wasn't all Spike's pull. Ilfenesh Hadera ' IH: At this point, I'm like, wow, Spike trusts me. He's not gonna put my name in the mix if he's not sure that I can bring it. We've worked together for many years and are close, but he said to me going into the chemistry read with Denzel, 'This is going to be Denzel's choice. He brought me this project, he's a producer on it, he's the star of the show, so this decision will really be his in the end.' So it feels nice to know that I got the Denzel Washington co-sign and it wasn't all Spike's pull. I can't even imagine the feeling as an actor. Of course, Denzel has been in so many Spike Lee joints. So to have not only that trust from him, but also that trust from Spike. He's tapping you in similar ways that he's tapped Denzel throughout his career. IH: It feels great and validating, but also, at this point in my career, I'm like give me a chance, man. Put me in, coach. I know what I can do. You just hope that the people around you trust you and will let you do what you know you can. It's not every day that people have faith in your abilities and let you show them and rise to the occasion. What role do you think Pam has when it comes to her husband's decision? IH: I think she gives him the freedom to figure it out. People have been calling her the moral compass. I think she guides him gently towards what they both know is the right thing to do. She's not naive, despite knowing what the choice to make is to the implications of giving up basically all they own. What does this mean for their life, for their lifestyle, for what they've worked so hard to build? But I think she lets him come to the right conclusion on his own while guiding him with a gentle hand. I love how this film emphasizes the value of Black art over fame and riches. But a lot of times art does get compromised for business. I'm curious if this film challenged or influenced how you think about and approach art going forward? IH: If you're lucky, you get both. And that is such a very small percentage of artists who get the pleasure of doing work that they're passionate about and being able to live a nice lifestyle. You hope people don't go into this with the goal of achieving fame or becoming a multimillionaire. Those should not be the reasons you follow the path of an artist but you shouldn't be demonized for wanting to be recognized by people who consume and love your art and wanting to live a nice lifestyle. When I think about projects that are presented to me or jobs that I choose to do, I'm at a place where I do have some financial freedom. I'm really grateful for not being dictated by the dollar amount attached to the project. I have taken jobs in the past that don't strike a creative nerve but, financially, have been necessary for me at the time, and that's not where you want to be. If you can create a foundation so you can stop doing work because of the paycheck, you're in a really great spot. But I'm not turning my nose up at anyone who chooses jobs for safety. We've all got to live. And it's harder and harder right now in this industry. So it becomes more and more challenging to say no to a gig. Are there any artistically underrated or projects that you've been a part of that you feel like didn't get the attention that they deserve? IH: I know people are starting to get hip to Godfather of Harlem. When Epix greenlit us, it was a pretty little known network. Now Epix is MGM, MGM plus. But I think, at the time, if that show had been on another streamer with more subscribers, it would have exploded. But it has to be this perfect storm, right? I think we're starting to get more love, but I wish it had been that way from the beginning. But then you look at a show like The Wire, when that was on in real time, some people were watching it. But now we consider [The Wire] one of the best television shows of all time. So maybe we just need to take a little time step away from it and revisit in a few years, when people have finally caught up to us.