Christ and the new atheism

Reader Comments

• Posted by moonhiker at Sunday, June 15, 2008 at 02:04 PM

  Hi Victor, Though I am not a Mennonite, I come from an Anabaptist background in my own faith walk with Jesus. I have been committed to Christ's teaching about loving our enemies since I personally studied the issue before registering as a conscientious objector on my 18th birthday during the early part of the Vietnam War (a position that was not shared my most of my childhood church). I've met you and your entire family when I came for a visit several years ago with your brother, Andrew, whom I count as one of my best friends. He sent me the link to your article, which I've read with great interest. I agree with much of it, probably don't understand some of it, want to elaborate on certain points, and share concerns about others. My comments will cover all of the above. Perhaps we can sharpen each other, as iron sharpens iron (Prov. 27:17). (1) The fear of God. You said, "Russell’s principal objection to Christianity was its alleged foundation on fear: 'Fear is the basis of the whole thing—fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death.' " I have long been concerned over the tendency of modern Christians to fear any acknowledgement of the proper and quite rational place of fear in Christianity. Your use of "alleged" suggests (but does not prove) that you may be one of them. Jesus said to "agree with your adversary quickly" (Matt. 5:25), which is exactly what I would do if confronted by that objection from Bertrand Russell: Sir, I believe you are largely right about fear being the basis of the whole thing, but largely wrong in perceiving that fear to be irrational and unwarranted. In the Old Testament we read in at least three places that "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom," and in the New Testament we find numerous commands to fear God or fear the Lord. Jesus himself warned, "Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell" (Matt. 10:28). And Paul said, "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad. Since, then, we know what it is to fear the Lord, we try to persuade men." (2 Cor. 5:10-11). And the writer of Hebrews said, "Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom which cannot be shaken, let us have grace, by which we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear. For our God is a consuming fire" (Heb. 12:28-29). So you see, sir, I fear God just as I fear fire. I love to sit next to a fireplace or a camp fire and stare into the mysterious beauty of the flames, but you couldn't pay me enough to sit IN that fire. And, since you strike me as a rational person, I'm sure you also fear fire. Indeed, when young children have not yet developed a healthy fear of fire, we have to protect them from their lack of such a rational fear. Now some people can also acquire an irrational fear of fire so that they cannot use it or enjoy it, but that irrational fear of fire should never be confused with the normal rational fear of fire, which is intended to keep us in a proper relationship with fire. Then fire serves us well, cooking our food, keeping us warm, and cheering our spirits. But get into a wrong relationship with that same fire and it will destroy you. That is how I fear God, and how Jesus and the apostles taught others to fear God, and how I hope that you will come to fear God too. It is a logical, rational, purifying, constructive, protective fear. And THAT kind of fear of God IS the biblical basis of New Testament Christianity. There is no contradiction between fearing God that way and loving God, just as there is no contradiction between fearing fire and loving fire, both of which I do. When I hear or read of modern believers who downplay or disparage the need to fear God, I wonder why they assume they know God better than Abraham or Moses or David or the apostles did, ALL of whom clearly bore testimony that they FEARED God. This includes the aged apostle John at the end of his life, when that "apostle of love" probably knew the Lord better than most anyone else who's ever lived (Rev. 1:17). One of my operating assumptions (and we all have them, whether we realize or acknowledge them or not) is that the Old Testament men of God and the New Testament apostles knew God better than anyone alive today does, and that we therefore manifest a dangerous hubris if we dismiss as unnecessary what was normative in their own experience with God and considered of vital importance in their teaching about God. (2) Postmodernism and intellectual respectability. I wish you had explained what you meant when you said, "Our classroom discussion eventually determined that the rise of postmodernism has allowed Christianity to return to the table of intellectual respectability." Which intellectuals did you then or now perceive regarding Christianity as once again intellectually respectable? (I certainly think it is intellectually respectable, but I am not aware of that being a widespread perception of intellectuals today.) And, if true, in what way did postmodernism bring about that change? And still more important, is the "Christianity" they deem respectable the same as what is found in the Bible, or is it a pale, watered down version that has been revised so that it WILL be intellectually respectable to them--such as stripped of all of its supernatural elements including the resurrection of Christ? (I do not regard either modernism or postmodernism as being very close to a biblical worldview. I think both of those worldviews share some significant values with a BW which should be recognized and affirmed, and both of them have grave errors and fallacies of thinking which are not at all compatible with a BW.) I agree with a comment made by Chris Simmons, who regards himself as a postmodern Christian (as reported at http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/november13/7.74.html?start=2): The pendulum always swings too far. Some postmodernisms talk about not being able to know anything, that we live in an illusion, and all that stuff. As a Christian, I do not subscribe to that. The response to the naïvete of modernism has been to be overly cynical about knowledge. But God has endowed us with the ability to know him and to know his world through our relationship with him. Much of modernism overvalues the intellect and propositional truth to the neglect of experience and relational truth, and much of postmodernism overvalues experience and relational truth to the neglect of intellect and propositional truth. The biblical account is literally filled with calls to believe its propositional truths and calls to experience its relational truths--and is subverted and distorted by the rejection of either. What Simmons said about the cynicism of many postmoderns concerning knowledge simply confirms how right on was the pithy response which the novelist Ayn Rand made on a college campus some time before her death in 1981. After captivating an audience at Yale University, she was asked by a reporter, "What's wrong with the modern world?" Without a moment's hesitation she made her reply. "Never before has the world been so desperately asking for answers to crucial questions, and never before has the world been so frantically committed to the idea that no answers are possible. To paraphrase the Bible, the modern attitude is, Father, forgive us, for we know not what we're doing AND PLEASE DON'T TELL US!" But that sounds even more like the postmodern attitude than the modern attitude, and Jesus DID tell people the answers (regardless of their worldview or philosophy), as we see so clearly at the end of the Sermon on the Mount--"And so it was, when Jesus had ended these sayings, that the people were astonished at His teaching, for He taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes. (Matt. 7:28-29). While their religious teachers only shared opinions, Jesus boldly proclaimed that he spoke nothing except what God had shown him (John 8:28). He expected people to believe his propositional truths, and through obedience to experience his relational truths. (I personally believe that even the propositional truths in God's word are intended to result in creating or enhancing relationships somehow--with God, or other people, or ourselves, or his creation--that doctrine is to be experienced as well as believed.) But I pose one last question before leaving this section: Since Jesus was so profoundly unimpressed with outward appearances and images of respectability, how relevant is it whether "postmodernism has allowed Christianity to return to the table of intellectual respectability" or not? (3) The totalitarian nature of the New Atheism, and its old psychological factors. You said that the phenomenal appeal of the current books by the New Atheists reveals "a widespread hunger for open and aggressive skepticism about the role of religion in public life." People can "hunger" of course for things which will utterly destroy them (or the society in which they live). And this resistance of the New Atheists to religion is not limited to its role in public life, but to its role in private life as well. Controversial scientist and evolutionist Richard Dawkins, whom you cited as one of the New Atheists, calls religion a "virus" and faith-based education "child abuse" in a two-part series entitled "Root of All Evil?" he wrote and appeared in that aired on the UK's Channel 4 in 2006. Dawkins compares Moses to Hitler and Saddam Hussein, and derides the New Testament as "St Paul's nasty, sado-masochistic doctrine of atonement for original sin." In his book, A Devil's Chaplain: reflections on hope, lies, science, and love, he says, "Society, for no reason that I can discern, accepts that parents have an automatic right to bring their children up with particular religious opinions. . . ." (p. 154). An admiring reviewer of the book writes, "Dawkins is an atheist, a strenuous and militant and proud one. He thinks religious belief is a dangerous virus, and that it is a crime to infect the mind of a child with it." For the militant New Atheists, religion (except for pantheism) must be kept so private that even one's own children will not be exposed to it, in order to stamp out such "child abuse." That is nothing short of a call for tyranny and the destruction of religious freedom, for individuals, families, and society. In A Devil's Chaplain, Dawkins warns against an "intellectual appeasement policy" with religion (pp. 146-149). It seems obvious that Christians (and anyone else who values the role of religion in life and culture) cannot appease the New Atheists who take such dogmatic, dangerous, and destructive positions about the role of religion, any more than England's former Prime Minister Chamberlain was able to appease Hitler's aggression. What is perhaps less obvious is that irrational (psychological) factors are highly influential in the development of atheism, just as atheists like to assert that they are in the development of religious beliefs. The psychologist Dr. Paul C. Vitz was an atheist from 18 to 38, before he understood that. He then wrote Faith of the Fatherless: The Psychology of Atheism, explaining the various psychological factors responsible for his own atheism, and how he has come to see them explaining the well known atheists of history. His insights are crucial to understand when dealing with the New Atheists--or our own tendency toward "practical atheism"--living as if God doesn't exist (Titus 1:16) so that we can "do our own thing" regardless of the will of God. This stubborn penchant for rebelliousness against our Creator does not disappear just because we are believers. If we are honest about our own similar struggle to submit to the will of God, we may help some nonbelievers to recognize the psychological factors in their denial that there is a God--factors which are often hidden behind intellectual excuses for such unbelief, even from themselves. Some people are intellectually honest enough to admit that this is, or was, the driving force behind their agnosticism or atheism--the refusal to believe in any deity who would tell them what to do and how to live their life. The widely respected scientist Francis S. Collins, head of the Human Genome Project, writes in The Language of God (A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief), about his agnosticism while in college: "In fact, my assertion of 'I don't know' was really more along the lines of 'I don't want to know.' As a young man growing up in a world full of temptations, it was convenient to ignore the need to be answerable to any higher spiritual authority. I practiced a thought and behavior pattern referred to as 'willful blindness' by the noted scholar and writer C. S. Lewis." He describes himself as a full-fledged atheist after he became a doctor, and makes this self-revelation about the interaction with a patient one day which challenged his unbelief: That moment haunted me for several days. Did I not consider myself a scientist? Does a scientist draw conclusions without considering the data? Could there be a more important question in all of human existence than "Is there a God?" And yet there I found myself, with a combination of willful blindness and something that could only be properly described as arrogance, having avoided any serious consideration that God might be a real possibility. Suddenly all my arguments seemed very thin, and I had the sensation that the ice under my feet was cracking. This realization was a thoroughly terrifying experience. After all, if I could no longer rely on the robustness of my atheistic position, would I have to take responsibility for actions that I would prefer to keep unscrutinized? Was I answerable to someone other than myself? The question was now too pressing to avoid. (4) "Organized religion is actually sick." I totally agree with you "that organized religion is actually sick" and I do not find it "hard to admit" at all. The tragic divorce rate in the U.S. is actually a bit higher among professing Christians than it is among unbelievers. On that basis alone (and there are countless others), it seems that such a diagnosis is unquestionably accurate--and that this deplorable condition of believers is a significant factor in explaining the vitriolic attacks against us by unbelievers today. Weakness (in the church or elsewhere) tends to invite attack, and hypocrisy (in the church or elsewhere) tends to evoke disrespect. (5) But we must beware of reducing complex questions to simplistic answers. I am truly puzzled that you refer to this last mentioned factor as "the most convincing answer" to why the New Atheists are so militant in their attacks against faith today, as if there is only one answer. No matter how obvious it is that the church today is badly sick and in desperate need of healing, it seems equally obvious that this is only one of several significant factors in explaining the current militant atheism, some of which you mentioned yourself. I don't believe that one-dimensional perspectives serve us well in responding to multi-dimensional problems. How can we not acknowledge that one factor in this militant opposition to faith is exactly what Christ warned about--that his disciples would be hated by the world just as he was hated by the world, because he has called us out of the world (John 15:18-25)? This fundamental truth should not be used as an excuse for not seeking the healing of the church, but neither should the sickness of the church be allowed to negate this crucial truth or any of the other factors involved. I am also perplexed that you offered no clarification of your statement, "Nonbelievers in the West also fear the erosion of the separation of church and state, as evidenced by the resistance to accepted scientific ideas such as evolution and global warming." To equate "resistance to accepted scientific ideas such as evolution and global warming" with evidence of "the erosion of the separation of church and state" is a very serious false dichotomy. It fallaciously assumes that religious faith is the only basis for such resistance, and is often used intentionally to discredit such questioning of the status quo by impugning the motives of the questioner as faith based rather than science based. A growing number of scientists however question evolution on scientific grounds alone, and it would be preposterous to claim that all of the thousands of scientists who question that man is the cause of the current global warming are all believers. Even the BBC has lampooned the scientific claims of Al Gore and pointed out the utter lack of objectivity in his global warming presentations, and the BBC is most assuredly not doing so from a faith perspective! I cannot tell though whether you recognize this false dichotomy, and the need to dismantle it whenever it raises its head, for the sake of both science and faith. (6) Seeking a third way. You say that "The vast majority of Christians will not read these books . . ." and "On the other hand, the response of some believers has been to rush into battle against these bold denials of faith. I’m sure pastors are thumbing through the books for juicy quotations, if not actually reading the whole text, in order to set up an atheistic straw man to pummel with Scripture." Then in your next sentence you say, "As Anabaptists, though, we should consider our practice of seeking a third way, which seems to me to be the willingness to ask not how we can prevent these ideas from spreading but what the community of faith can learn from them." That certainly seems to be a false dichotomy in itself. Why should we choose between opposing grievous error and learning everything we can from it--including what makes us vulnerable to it? Why not do both, just as health care workers oppose the spread of a deadly infection, and seek to learn everything they can from it--including what makes us vulnerable to it? (And how could anyone who remotely believes the Bible not believe that the militant propagation of atheism is anything less than a deadly spiritual infection?) It seems to me that the responsible "third way" in this case is for the community of faith to learn everything we can from the New Atheists, both about our own faults and shortcomings as well as their intellectual fallacies and predisposing psychological factors, so that we can better correct our own problems and more effectively "speak the truth in love" (Eph. 4:15) as we oppose the errors of atheism. (Speaking the truth in this context would include pointing out the crucial difference between "honest doubt" where the doubter is willing to believe in God once he sees the evidence the Creator has placed all around us, and "dishonest doubt" which will always manufacture still another reason for not believing no matter how much evidence one sees. Atheists can be just as hypocritical as theists can.) I am also concerned over why you implied that believers who "rush into battle against these bold denials of faith" do so only by setting up "an atheistic straw man to pummel with Scripture." C.S. Lewis, a former atheist himself, certainly did not do that in his classic Mere Christianity or any of the other of his many writings that have been used to turn so many people to God. (If he had, his writings certainly would not have been so instrumental in leading the world class scientist Francis S. Collins from atheism to faith in Christ.) Dr. Francis Shaeffer, who founded L'Abri in Switzerland and led so many thousands of atheistic college students to Christ through his ministry, certainly did not do that. Josh McDowell, who wrote Evidence That Demands A Verdict and has also led so many thousands of atheistic college students to Christ from all over the world, has not done that. Ravi Zacharias, a former Hindu and one of the most effective multi-cultural communicators of the gospel of Jesus all over the globe today, has certainly not done that. Indeed, believers who build "an atheistic straw man to pummel with Scripture" will not be effective in leading many atheists to Christ. It is unfortunate that some pastors and evangelists build such straw men, but there are many others who do not. One thing that is very apparent from the writings and messages of the four men I just cited is that they constantly and diligently learned from the atheists, agnostics, and skeptics whom they both opposed and loved enough to seek to win to Jesus, knowing that they could not be effective communicators to that mindset without first becoming diligent students of that mindset. And why do you imply that it is somehow wrong "to rush into battle against these bold denials of faith" when that is exactly what believers in general and spiritual shepherds in particular are expected to do according to Scripture, by example and command (e.g. Acts 13:6-12; 20:26-32; 2 Tim. 2:24-26)? The community of faith has a biblical mandate to stand for truth and oppose error--"to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 3). It also has a biblical mandate to acknowledge truth from any source, regardless of how flawed may be its morals, message, motives, or maturity. Truth can come from little children, unbelievers, immoral or immature people, hypocritical believers or proud atheists. Thus Jesus told the multitudes and his disciples to do what the scribes and Pharisees told them to do, but not to do according to their hypocritical deeds (Matt. 23:1-3). Christians are to "test all things; hold fast what is good" (1 Thess. 5:21). We ignore truth to our own peril, regardless of its source. If God can speak to His people through four-legged asses as He did to Balaam the prophet, He certainly has no problem in speaking to us through two-legged asses as well. This does not mean that all sources are equally advisable to seek out for truth and wisdom, which would be nonsense--just that truth must be acknowledged regardless of its source. I would never recommend the writings of the New Atheists to believers in general--just to those who are spiritually mature enough to discern truth from error and thus benefit from them to the glory of God (Heb. 5:14). Richard Dawkins, for example, is a brilliant writer, and I certainly found truths among his very dangerous errors. Indeed, that mixture is a prime reason why some errors deceive so many people--they see the truths and are unable to discern the errors camouflaged among them. (7) What do you mean when you say, "Refuse to demonize atheism"? I want to have the same attitude toward atheism (or any other subject) that is manifested in "the whole counsel of God," and to declare that "whole counsel of God" in order that I may be "innocent of the blood of all men" (Acts 20:26-27). Jesus answered the devil by reaffirming the truth of Deut. 8:3, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God" (Matt. 4:4). That "every word" does not give us the option of treating the Bible as if it is a smorgasbord, from which we may choose only the items which please our spiritual taste buds. (Because "the heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked," as recorded in Jer. 17:9, I doubt that anyone has spiritual taste buds which are very reliable indicators of what we need to nourish our spirits, and most of us in western culture have consumed so much spiritual junk food that our organs of spiritual discernment have undoubtedly become both desensitized to what is good for us and perverted to enjoy what is bad for us.) We find the scriptural perspective on atheism in such passages as these: For the wicked boasts of his heart's desire, And the greedy man curses and spurns the Lord. The wicked, in the haughtiness of his countenance, does not seek Him. All his thoughts are, "There is no God." (Psa. 10:3-4 NASV) The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God." (Psa. 14:1a & 53:1 NASV) For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. (Rom. 1:25 NASV) The last passage certainly describes pantheism, the only kind of religion acceptable to any of the New Atheists. Since mankind is created to be religious, renouncing the Creator inevitably results in worshiping creation in some sense. If merely teaching the biblical perspective on atheism is what you mean by demonizing it, then demonize it we must if we are to be authentic people of Christian faith. I know that the four men I cited who have led so many atheists to Christ have all taught what the Bible teaches about God and the seriousness of denying Him. I also know that they do not "demonize atheism" in the sense of using unnecessarily harsh language when confronting atheists. Instead they seek to be as gracious and gentle as possible in proclaiming the truth about God, to create a relationship of respect that encourages others to open their heart to their Creator. They try to meet people where they are at, seeking to understand why they have not yet believed in God so that they will be willing to receive help in removing the obstacles to their having faith. That is a crucial factor in why those four men have all been world class communicators in leading so many atheists to the Lord. I hope this is what you meant by not demonizing atheism, but I'm not sure it is. You said, "The vitriolic tone of these books is a direct consequence of the long tradition of demonizing unbelief." I view that statement with perplexity and consternation, for it seems to make no more sense than saying that the rise in virulent pornography is a direct consequence of the long tradition of demonizing porn (whatever such "demonization" might mean). It also seems to ignore both the biblical and historical facts. I believe the vitriolic tone of these books is a direct consequence of the growing rejection of authority in general and divine authority in particular--the fury of people who resent the very idea of even their Creator holding them accountable for how they live. It is part and parcel of the modern mentality that we have the right to live as we damn well please, sexually or otherwise, without ANYONE even questioning it. One need look no further than 2 Tim. 3:1-5 to find a sociologically accurate description of our society, even though this spot on prediction was made two thousand years ago: 1But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. 2People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, 4treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— 5having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them. Much of that description applies to a decadent church that is in desperate need of healing, and most of it applies to a decadent culture also in desperate need of healing--but a society in the throes of rejecting both the godly values which once made it great and the Author of those values as well. The history of vitriolic atheism cannot be logically explained as merely a reaction to a "long tradition of demonizing unbelief." I agree with you that atheism should not be used as "a convenient foil, a label for any suspect political, social or scientific movement" (though it is certainly right and proper to investigate the role of atheism in any movement, just as atheists assert the right to investigate the role of religion in any movement). I agree "that the people most roundly criticized by Jesus, John the Baptist and even the Old Testament prophets were not unbelievers but religious hypocrites"--but I disagree with the conclusion you draw from that about unbelief. For some reason you have portrayed unbelief as benign, nothing to be seriously challenged or concerned about. The bible contradicts that from beginning to end. The crucial importance of belief in God and disbelief in God starts in Genesis (15:6; 45:26), and ends in Revelation (21:8), where the "unbelieving" shall experience "the second death." Jesus regarded unbelief as so irrational that he marveled at it, and could not do many mighty works in its inhibiting presence (Mark 6:4-6), and so wrong that it was worthy of his severe rebuke (Matt. 17:20; Mark 16:14; Luke 24:25). I certainly agree with you that "Jesus socialized with publicans, Roman commanders and spiritually searching religious elite." That is why he had a reputation for being "a friend of tax collectors and sinners" (Matt. 11:19). If most Christians were spiritually and psychologically mature enough to do the same today, we would undoubtedly be used by the Lord to lead many more sinners to repentance (Matt. 9:9-13). What a tragedy this is generally not the case. (Of course, if we socialize with them without extending mercy by calling them to repentance, that is also a tragedy, though we often need to build relationships of respect and trust before extending that invitation.) I am also amazed at this statement you made about Jesus: "Even more crucially, he did not 'perform' miracles in order to create belief; he healed the sick and fed the hungry." The biblical facts you offer in the second half of that compound sentence do not remotely validate the opinion you offer in the first half, an opinion that is challenged by much in Scripture. Christ's first miracle neither healed the sick nor fed the hungry. John said of Jesus turning water into wine, "This beginning of signs Jesus did in Cana of Galilee, and manifested His glory; and His disciples believed in Him" (John 2:11). A few verses later John added that "many believed in His name when they saw the signs which He did" (v. 23), a direct correlation which John emphasizes over and over (3:2; 4:46-54;7:31; 10:41-42; 11:45-48; 12:17-19). That was a major theme of John's gospel, which he summarized in 20:30-31 by saying, "Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." In more modern terminology John could just as accurately have said, I have compiled some of the evidence of the deity of Christ into this book (though not nearly all of it), including many eye witness accounts, so that you may have a strong, credible intellectual basis for believing logically and reasonably that He is who He claimed to be--the Son of God, and that by trusting in Him you may have eternal life through His name. The bible does not teach blind faith--it teaches evidence-based faith. Jesus himself said, "Unless you people see signs and wonders, you will by no means believe" (John 4:48). I would have been one of them then, and am one of them now. If someone expects me to believe that he is God in the flesh, I expect him to prove it--just as Jesus did. And his clear expectation that his miracles should lead to saving faith is reflected in that "He began to rebuke the cities in which most of His mighty works had been done, because they did not repent" (Matt. 11:20-24). Even when he miraculously fed the hungry and healed the sick, it is often clear that he did so not only to meet physical needs, but to be a spiritual sign leading to belief (John 6:12-14; 9:16). Yet for reasons I cannot fathom, you not only opine that Jesus did not "perform" miracles in order to create belief--you apparently consider it "crucial" that others hold that opinion too. WHY, for heaven's sake? (8) Rediscover the radical Jesus. I totally agree with what you wrote in response to an assertion by the atheist, Sam Harris (and by inference, with his assertion): "The religious moderate is only moderate because he or she is not fully committed to the faith and is not willing to follow through with (or is not aware of) the commands of God. There is something to this argument; in fact, we can read it as a prophetic challenge to the church." Amen! Indeed, we can. But then you immediately threw in another mind-boggling conundrum: "Although hostile to such beliefs as the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection, the New Atheists are surprisingly open to the actual message of Christ." Did you really mean to imply that the Resurrection is NOT part of "the actual message of Christ"? Jesus emphatically regarded his coming resurrection as the most significant miracle of all and the one of prime importance as evidence for belief (Matt. 16:21; 17:22-23; Mark 8:31; Luke 9:22; John 2:18-22). After his resurrection he declared it to be fundamental to the gospel message he commissioned his apostles to begin preaching (Luke 24:44-48). The apostles were faithful in proclaiming the resurrected Christ as the source of salvation, mentioning it at least three times in the first gospel sermon (Acts 2:24, 32, 32), and throughout the messages recorded in Acts. The resurrection is so utterly crucial, in fact, that "if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty. . . . if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins!" (1 Cor. 15:14, 17). And belief in the resurrection is so crucial that the word of God declares confession of faith in the resurrection to be essential for salvation itself (Rom. 10:8-10). When you refer to Sam Harris pondering the question of "how the church managed to transform Jesus’ principal message of loving one’s neighbor and turning the other cheek into a doctrine of murder and rapine," you fail to point out that this distorts the message of Christ by implying that his "principal message" was man-centered when it was clearly God-centered. That question should indeed be pondered, but only after we have FIRST pondered the question of how and why much of the church has managed to transform Jesus' REALLY principal message of loving God with all of one's heart, strength, soul, and mind, including doing his will as our very purpose for existence, into a doctrine of agnosticism or outright atheism from the pulpit, and substituting what Christ said was the second greatest commandment for what he said was the first greatest commandment (Matt. 22:35-40). I totally agree that "Christ calls us to nothing less than love for enemies and servant leadership." I hope you also agree that Christ calls us to nothing less than love for God and doing what he said was "the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent" (John 6:29). If obedience to the second greatest commandment does not flow out of obedience to the first greatest commandment, it will only be man-made righteousness and dead works rather than service to the living God (Heb. 6:1; 9:14; Rev. 3:1). Religious moderates come in all kinds of flavors. Some want to avoid various social and behavioral demands of biblical discipleship (because submitting to them would preclude enjoying the level of worldly comfort and security they desire more than they desire the blessings of God), so they reject them on the spurious grounds that those particular demands embody the "social gospel" of the liberals--and end up with the anti-social gospel. Other religious moderates want to avoid various spiritual and faith demands of biblical discipleship (because submitting to them would preclude enjoying the level of intellectual acceptance and approval they desire from the anti-religious intelligentsia more than they desire the blessings of God), so they reject them on the spurious grounds that those particular demands embody the naive supernatural gospel of the conservatives--and end up with the anti-supernatural gospel. If the first group can be described as "so heavenly minded that it is of no earthly use," the second group can be described as "so earthly minded that it is of no heavenly use." The first group is incapable of doing the will of God on earth as it is in heaven (Matt. 6:10), and the second group is incapable of doing the will of God on earth in order to go to heaven (Matt. 7:21-23). Each is a seriously defective gospel which repudiates the "radical Jesus" of the Bible. (9) "Embrace a multicultural church." I agree that "no one can claim a monopoly on the 'truth'" even while I firmly believe that Jesus is "the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6), and that God's word is the truth about spiritual reality. But truth can be found in the most unlikely of places, and it needs to be affirmed in any person or culture. I personally experienced a mind-altering realization some years ago when I saw for the first time that, while I believe the Bible contains absolute truth, I also believe that our understanding of it is always relative. In Mark 9:41 for instance, Jesus says that something is "certainly" true, and I am absolutely certain that it is true. I am not at all certain, however, that I understand what the reward is and what therefore Jesus means. But why should that even surprise us? It is the absolutes or certainties of science which even make modern science possible. (It is not possible, for example, among superstitious people who attribute natural phenomena to the random actions of angry gods or evil spirits, for that does not provide the cause and effect relationship which science requires.) But science has (to some extent) learned the value of humility about what it "knows" even about what seem to be certainties, for sometimes they prove to be uncertainties instead. I believe the same principle holds true in religion as well, and our belief in absolutes or certainties needs to be tempered by a humble appreciation of just how fallible we are in our understanding. The pastor of an "emergent" church made this interesting comment: We have gone from a “modern” world to a “post-modern” world. The modern world trusted science to have all the facts. The post-modern post-Challenger disaster world trusts science less and the individual more. Henri Nouwen said it best in describing our situation: “We are on the move from false certainty to true uncertainty.” At the same time we must avoid becoming "overly cynical about knowledge," as the "post-modern Christian" I quoted earlier pointed out, because "God has endowed us with the ability to know him and to know his world through our relationship with him." The Bible makes clear that some things we are intended to know with certainty, both negative and positive truths (e.g. Matt. 5:20; Rom. 6:5; Gal. 6:7-9; 1 John 5:13), including the certainty that Jesus is the Son of God who died on the cross as atonement for our sins, and was raised from the dead to return to heaven from where he had come, offering eternal life to all who would trust in him, by grace through faith. I believe that there are at least incipient deposits of the truth about God in all cultures, as missionary-author Don Richardson illustrated so inspiringly in Peace Child, and missionary-author Bruce Olson illustrated so significantly in Bruchko, and that it is the responsibility of Christians in every culture to use the language, symbols, thought forms, customs, and institutions of that culture to accurately express the truth about God which transcends every culture--starting with their own culture. Every culture, just as every person, has been distorted by sin; and every culture, just as every person, can be transformed by submission to the truth of God. We err greatly whenever we assume that Western "civilized" cultures are less in need of such transformation than "uncivilized" cultures in Third World countries (a point well made by the excellent book, Play the Cross-Cultural Evangelism Game. by Daniel Kikawa). I much agree with you that "religion is intimately bound up in culture, and an attack on a particular religion will be felt not as a merely intellectual foray but as ignorant, insulting and often threatening. The great strength of the church—and the reason it continues to be compelling for many—is the ability of the community of believers to make a truth claim while continuing to accept differences in interpretation and application." Bruce Olson's incredible missionary work among the Motilone tribe for the past forty years illustrates that beautifully--and controversially. (The tribe has never had special "church services" on Sunday or any other day of the week. They are so involved in "walking the Jesus trail" individually every day of the week, and fellowshiping with one another communally in the process on a daily basis, that they can't even understand why anyone would only have special meetings for this purpose just one day a week. The depth of their commitment to Jesus, and the breadth of their commitment to serving the surrounding tribes with whom they were once bitter enemies, puts virtually any western church to shame.) They have been transformed from a hostile stone-age tribe into a people who continue to embrace many of their ancient cultural values while becoming so literate that a growing number of their young people have now become doctors, lawyers, agronomists, etc.--every one of them returning to the tribe to use their newfound knowledge and skills to help this continuing transformational process, instead of remaining out in "civilization" to take advantage of the "opportunities" there. They freely credit Jesus, not Bruce, as the source of this modern miracle. But the key to Bruce's effectiveness from the very beginning was his treating the native medicine men with respect as the leaders of their people, instead of attacking them as emissaries of Satan. As he affirmed their leadership instead of undermining it, they became more and more open to anything he could teach them, including the truth about Jesus. I believe it is profoundly important that the church be multi-cultural (as the New Testament church clearly was), without embracing the false god of multiculturalism. Bowing to this modern idol results in syncretism--the church indiscriminately accepting the customs and values of a culture even when they are incompatible with the values of the kingdom of God. That nullifies kingdom values which we are forbidden to do, whether done in the name of love, relevance, or expediency (Gal. 1:6-10; 4:8-11; Col. 2:6-8). On the other hand, when we fail to be multi-cultural as Paul was in his missionary endeavors (Acts 16:1-3; 21:15-26; 1 Cor. 9:19-23), it results in becoming irrelevant to a culture--the church indiscriminately rejecting the customs and values of a culture even when they are compatible with the values of the kingdom of God. That compromises the effective proclamation of the gospel, which is also wrong, whether done in the name of truth, fear of the gospel being mingled with error, or personal dislike (Rom. 14; 1 Cor. 10:23-33; Col. 2:16-23). I agree with Lesslie Newbigin, now deceased but a former missionary to India and a prolific author about the problems of contextualizing the gospel in culture, that the gospel in not anti-cultural but it is counter-cultural. God says YES to the creational realities he has deposited into every culture, and God says NO to the distortions that have resulted from sin in every culture (http://www.newbigin.net/assets/pdf/lnmca_g.pdf). I could not tell from what you wrote how you understand this tension. You said, "Our embrace of a multicultural community refutes the claim that truth rules out diversity and that religion can only inspire conflict." Biblically speaking, truth does not rule out diversity per se, but it does rule out diversity which rejects God and his truth. Likewise, biblical Christianity does not "only inspire conflict" but it does inspire conflict with those who oppose truth. Jesus taught and modeled that, as did Paul. I pray for the courage and humility to follow their example, being a peacemaker where possible (Matt. 5:9; Rom. 12:18), and a spiritual warmaker where necessary (Luke 12:51-53; 2 Cor. 10:3-5). However I can deeply identify with your experience when you say, "One of the great challenges of worshiping in a Mennonite church in Indonesia has concerned the question of military participation. While I hold fast to a commitment to nonviolence, it has been instructive to consider the question from the perspective of a people treated as a Dutch colony as recently as 1947." One of my own great challenges over the years since I first became a conscientious objector to all military service, in response to the teaching of Christ about redemptive love for enemies, has been how to relate to fellow believers in my own culture who sincerely disagree with that understanding. For a long time I was not very peaceful, loving, sensitive, or inclusive toward them. I still don't see how anyone can reconcile killing one's enemies with the teachings of Jesus and his apostles, but I do see that Christians who genuinely feel a call to go to war or serve in law enforcement where they may well have to kill are doing what David and many other Old Testament heroes would have done in similar circumstances. I believe they are following the ethics delivered on Mt. Sinai rather than the ethics delivered in the Sermon on the Mount, but I have concluded that I cannot force my convictions on the matter onto them--and that I must respect their courage and sincerity when that is evidently the case (as illustrated by the words of the now dead soldier quoted in the article at http://www.worldmag.com/articles/14001). I also believe the community of faith must recognize that the way we learn to submit to human authority is likely to have a direct bearing on the way we submit to divine authority, just as we see in the Roman soldier whose faith so impressed even the Lord Jesus (Matt. 8:8-10). We should affirm the character strengths often developed in soldiers just as honestly as we express our disagreement with how they employ those same strengths. Paul was told "through the Spirit not to go up to Jerusalem" (Acts 21:4), but apparently took this only as a warning rather than an order. When his fellow believers continued trying to dissuade him from going but finally saw that he would not be persuaded they simply said, "The will of the Lord be done" (v. 14). I believe that Luke's choice of words in verse 4 indicate that it was an order, and that Paul's disobedience (based, I believe, on honest misperception of God's will for him) was what precluded him ever going to Spain as he had intended (Rom. 15:22-28). Would such honest disobedience (if that is what it was) have deprived him from coming to the church at Rome "in the fullness of the blessing of the gospel of Christ" (v. 29) as he had also expected, just because he arrived as a prisoner instead of a man free to continue on to Spain? I think not. If God could look at David's sins and still call him a man after his own heart (Acts 13:22), I am confident that he could look at Paul's honest disobedience and fully bless him anyway--and even cause it to serve kingdom purposes as well (Rom. 8:28). (10) A straw man and a false dichotomy. I agree when you say, "Disciples of Christ stand opposed to most of what the New Atheists assert. . . . But we miss hearing a prophetic word if we ignore them entirely, no matter how stridently secular the mouthpiece. The rise of New Atheism presents us with an opportunity to assess our failings and refocus on our priorities." Amen! But then you add, "The best counter is not another slightly more shrill argument but a searching look at ourselves." Obviously "another slightly more shrill argument" cannot be "the best counter" to anything, which is why those words are just a straw man, plus the whole statement is a false dichotomy. It implies that any argument we make against the New Atheists is nothing but a "shrill" argument (slightly or otherwise), and that our only choice is between making such arguments or taking a searching look at ourselves. Do you honestly believe that when Francis S. Collins takes issue with the New Atheists in The Language of God (A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief), that he is simply making "another slightly more shrill argument"? Why not take a searching look at ourselves AND learn to make the best arguments against atheism that we possibly can? Jesus did indeed say that we should remove the plank from our own eye first, not as a substitute for removing the speck from our brother's eye, but so that we can see more clearly to help the other person (Matt. 7:5). Even a speck in an eye can cause inflammation, and in some cases jeopardize the vision of the eye itself--including the ability to see God. Love will compel us to do what we can to remove any impediment to another person's vision, physical or spiritual. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Well, Victor, I have a bias in favor of anyone who chooses to be a foreign missionary as you are currently doing, and another bias in favor of any of the Sensenig brothers. At the same time, I must stand spiritually on the same conviction expressed by Martin Luther: “I consider myself convicted by the testimony of Holy Scripture, which is my basis; my conscience is captive to the Word of God. Thus I cannot and will not recant, because acting against one’s conscience is neither safe nor sound. God help me. Amen.” And I assume that, like Martin Luther when he nailed his famous 95 theses to the church house door in Wittenburg, your article is intended to challenge the status quo and stimulate critical thinking. That is the spirit in which I have responded, hoping that together we may all learn "the way of God more accurately" (Acts 18:26). Sincerely, Don W. Moore

• Posted by moonhiker at Wednesday, July 23, 2008 at 02:34 PM

  Just doing a reality check. If my last (and only) comment to an article in TM is indicative of how they are processed, all formatting is automatically removed when one hits "Submit" (including paragraphs), making them very hard to read and therefore almost worthless. If this is the case, I must assume that TM is not very interested in meaningful dialog between their authors and their readers.