Really. It seems that atheism has suddenly reappeared in the public arena… in a big way. After atheist leader Madalyn Murray O'Hair disappeared, the Hubble showed the beauty of God's creation, and a world renowned atheist Anthony Flew decided there was a God, it seemed like false spirituality was Christianity's biggest "competitor." But, atheism seems to be back—and hip.
I read both Wired and Time magazines with interest, but a Wired article was the most interesting. It reflected on matters of spirituality. Now a blog is probably not the best place to talk about the reasonableness of theism, and, for that matter, Christianity (follow these links for better studies on theism, Christianity, and the Bible.). But, I found the Wired magazine article to be particularly personal because I know the pastor referenced and have met one of the atheists mentioned.
The pastor mentioned in the Wired article, Matthew Barnett, serves as pastor of Angelus Temple and the Dream Center in Los Angeles. I last spent time with him a few months ago in New Orleans, helping him and the Foursquare Church talk about how to serve the poor in the area. Then we met in California last week to talk about how to "Love L.A." for the Gospel.
My other encounter was not as positive. I met this well-known atheist (mentioned in the article) in an airport and we exchanged a few words. The words he exchanged with me were fine, but the ones he exchanged with the gate agent were not. He was dismissive, rude, and angry.
Now, I know that Christians can be—and unfortunately, sometimes are—dismissive, rude, and angry. But, the Wired article makes such a clear distinction between the smart atheists and the silly Christians; it made me think of the contrasts in my own experience.
Do atheists give their lives to the poor for the love of Christ? I am sure some atheists do serve others and have a desire to help, but my experience reflects that many others do not. There are plenty of bad examples from Christians and non-Christians alike, but the list of atheists who have sacrificially given their lives to the poor is shorter than that of French war victories.
Why? We have a different motivation, worldview, and value system. God calls all Christians to a life of love and service. But since we are sinful people, most of us don't listen well. However, if you would like to see the results of atheism and Christianity, come with me to downtown L.A. Let's see who is serving the poor, caring for the weak, and defending the marginalized. While in L.A. last week, I met with the staff of World Impact, whose staff has taken a vow of simplicity to serve the poor; Set Free Church and ministries, who work with the homeless and drug addicted; and with Don Overstreet and heard about his ministry on Skid Row.
Is this anecdotal evidence really all that compelling? Don't atheists help without religious motivation? Bill Gates and renowned investor Warren Buffett are mentioned frequently because of their philanthropy, but they're both extremely wealthy. Most Christians are not. While the actions of both men are laudable and beneficial, neither one would compare favorably to the thousands of Christians who minister daily in difficult places across America and throughout the world. The fact is that Gate's and Buffett's degree of personal involvement in relieving the suffering of others is minimal despite the fortunes they've given. (See http://atheism.about.com/b/a/257812.htm?nl=1 for comments about Warren Buffet's giving.)
Yes, some atheists do "good." Why? Possibly the answer is found on the website, http://www.atheistsforhumanrights.org/, which speaks of a social obligation. There a lot of atheists serving in the Peace Corps, non-Christian social workers, public attorneys, and others who have no religious affiliations or beliefs. Yet in all this discussion of social service, practically unnoticed are the massive number of churches and Christians who serve the poor and hurting every day—for example, in the wake of Hurricane Katrina and other disasters. For every good deed that an atheist is involved in, hundreds of other good deeds can be cited where Christians are faithfully serving without public attention or acclaim.
In reality, the biggest distinction is not external, but internal. Christians not only have a divine calling, but a sustaining power. Their service is more than just an "ought to." If you were an atheist, you know you could shake off an "ought to." But a "call, and a command," well… that's different.
Although not all Christians listen to their Savior's call to serve as well those I highlighted above, I am guessing that the vast majority of those who care for the weak and meek in U.S. cities are doing so because of the call of a Savior, not the emptiness of atheism. Atheism does not produce a Matthew Barnett. Given the choice, I'll take Matthew Barnett any day.
It is easy to get into discussions about the virtuous living of peoples from various religious (or religious non-religious) perspectives. However, there are two sides of the question which could be addressed. The logical conclusion of the beliefs of a people and the actual actions of adherents. We know that many who claim to "believe" a certain way do not always act in accordance to their "faith" - this is true of altruistic believing atheists and "professing" Christians. For all the self-absorbed suburban atheists who care not for the poor we can show dozens of our brethren similarly disengaged. It is probably wise to admit that we all fall short of our ideals and there are examples of saints and sinners to be found on all sides.
Yet I think you are right to point out that both historical and contemporary practice of Christians demonstrates the difference in service (your own SBC's response to Katrina was indeed exemplary). I also think that serving without acclaim and in obscurity is the logical outworking of following the teaching of Jesus. He is our means and model to persistent service in hard places without circumstantial reward or the applause of men. There is no such call and command found in matter+time+chance.
In fact, you would be hard pressed to find a true prescriptive ought in atheism. There is a societal duty talked about, but there is nothing intrinsic to atheism which could mandate this. A social animal is within its rights to do whatever it sees fit - even antisocial behavior. He may have to go to jail if he gets too out of line, but there is nothing in an atheistic perspective that says one O-ught to be nice. But I have known many a nice atheist.
On another note - I am rolling out a short series on the new atheism...Part 1, Naturalism as Metanarrative is finished...I have no roll out schedule as this is a "side project" for me but it may be of interest with all the atheist media buzz today.
I appreciate your article and am myself frustrated with the way “Wired” portrayed the debate, however I tend to agree with Leslie Newbigin in that the history of the Christian church does not necessarily give Christianity the moral high road. I think the best approach for doing battle with the “New Atheism” is to take a Schaefferian approach, and lovingly “Blow the roof off” their crumbling dogma, and unlivable presuppositions. Dennett, Dawkins and Harris are reacting in a desperate and zealous attempt to revive rationalism and take back the ground lost with postmodernity’s devastation of their “religious” worldview. Francis Collins does a good job of this when he answers Dakins assumptions with, ...the difference is that my presumption of the possibility of God and therefore the supernatural is not zero, and your is” (Time Magazine, 11/13/2006, 54). That’s basically the issue. It is a faith tradition that denies God apriori. Dawkins, Dennett, et al, have no new information, just passion and hatred. Harris claims he is going to “Prove” that we are genetically crafted automatons in his next book, which will in many ways be the death of Darwinian stalwarts, environmental mutation and natural selection (After all if Neuroscience is going to prove this reality, then environment has no effect on genetics and change would ostensibly be impossible). Harris often uses this theory to disprove any notion of sin, but the weight of that hypothesis will do more than mitigate the guilt from antiquated notions such as the Christian concept of sin, it will remove any real reason for law, except the law of brutal force used by the powerful.
Thanks for the thoughts on this topic, and it is an encouragement to us all, as you say that, “Christians not only have a divine calling (To help the poor and oppressed, etc.), but a sustaining power. Their service is more than just an "ought to." This is our calling as we are here to glorify the name of our Lord Jesus Christ on this earth.
Thanks for your thoughts and guidance on this issue. Atheism is quickly becoming “pop”. Even now the “Blasphemy Challenge” (www.blasphemychallenge.com) is the buzz of the internet.
A thought for pastors and teachers … our preaching can’t always be polemic, but it can always be grounded. In other words, we don’t have to “go after” the atheists week after week. Whenever we do preach, however, we have to present well thought out ideas, solid research and credible arguments. Weekly doses of reasonable Christianity will help prepare people for the discussions and faith-crises they will encounter.
It’s like being in a fight. You don’t throw random punches. Instead you keep your feet grounded and your energy pushing forward.
The pastor mentioned in the Wired article,
It is easy to get into discussions about the virtuous living of peoples from various religious (or religious non-religious) perspectives. However, there are two sides of the question which could be addressed. The logical conclusion of the beliefs of a people and the actual actions of adherents. We know that many who claim to "believe" a certain way do not always act in accordance to their "faith" - this is true of altruistic believing atheists and "professing" Christians. For all the self-absorbed suburban atheists who care not for the poor we can show dozens of our brethren similarly disengaged. It is probably wise to admit that we all fall short of our ideals and there are examples of saints and sinners to be found on all sides.
Yet I think you are right to point out that both historical and contemporary practice of Christians demonstrates the difference in service (your own SBC's response to Katrina was indeed exemplary). I also think that serving without acclaim and in obscurity is the logical outworking of following the teaching of Jesus. He is our means and model to persistent service in hard places without circumstantial reward or the applause of men. There is no such call and command found in matter+time+chance.
In fact, you would be hard pressed to find a true prescriptive ought in atheism. There is a societal duty talked about, but there is nothing intrinsic to atheism which could mandate this. A social animal is within its rights to do whatever it sees fit - even antisocial behavior. He may have to go to jail if he gets too out of line, but there is nothing in an atheistic perspective that says one O-ught to be nice. But I have known many a nice atheist.
On another note - I am rolling out a short series on the new atheism...Part 1, Naturalism as Metanarrative is finished...I have no roll out schedule as this is a "side project" for me but it may be of interest with all the atheist media buzz today.
Reid Monaghan, Pastor, Inversion Fellowship
www.powerofchange.org
Ed
I appreciate your article and am myself frustrated with the way “Wired” portrayed the debate, however I tend to agree with Leslie Newbigin in that the history of the Christian church does not necessarily give Christianity the moral high road. I think the best approach for doing battle with the “New Atheism” is to take a Schaefferian approach, and lovingly “Blow the roof off” their crumbling dogma, and unlivable presuppositions. Dennett, Dawkins and Harris are reacting in a desperate and zealous attempt to revive rationalism and take back the ground lost with postmodernity’s devastation of their “religious” worldview. Francis Collins does a good job of this when he answers Dakins assumptions with, ...the difference is that my presumption of the possibility of God and therefore the supernatural is not zero, and your is” (Time Magazine, 11/13/2006, 54). That’s basically the issue. It is a faith tradition that denies God apriori. Dawkins, Dennett, et al, have no new information, just passion and hatred. Harris claims he is going to “Prove” that we are genetically crafted automatons in his next book, which will in many ways be the death of Darwinian stalwarts, environmental mutation and natural selection (After all if Neuroscience is going to prove this reality, then environment has no effect on genetics and change would ostensibly be impossible). Harris often uses this theory to disprove any notion of sin, but the weight of that hypothesis will do more than mitigate the guilt from antiquated notions such as the Christian concept of sin, it will remove any real reason for law, except the law of brutal force used by the powerful.
Thanks for the thoughts on this topic, and it is an encouragement to us all, as you say that, “Christians not only have a divine calling (To help the poor and oppressed, etc.), but a sustaining power. Their service is more than just an "ought to." This is our calling as we are here to glorify the name of our Lord Jesus Christ on this earth.
Thanks again and God bless!
Mike Gunn
Thanks for your thoughts and guidance on this issue. Atheism is quickly becoming “pop”. Even now the “Blasphemy Challenge” (www.blasphemychallenge.com) is the buzz of the internet.
A thought for pastors and teachers … our preaching can’t always be polemic, but it can always be grounded. In other words, we don’t have to “go after” the atheists week after week. Whenever we do preach, however, we have to present well thought out ideas, solid research and credible arguments. Weekly doses of reasonable Christianity will help prepare people for the discussions and faith-crises they will encounter.
It’s like being in a fight. You don’t throw random punches. Instead you keep your feet grounded and your energy pushing forward.