The Art of Poetry

Many of us have heard the name "Christopher Hitchens" in association with the most recent and extreme form of atheism bleeding out of academia.  "The New Atheism" is the term for a populace of speakers and authors who see belief in God not just as false but as dangerous.  While their sentiments are not not shared widely, the existence of such belies or "anti-beliefs" at the popular level is indicative of the intent of persecution.

For many years, extreme atheism in the west has been limited to extreme circles of writers in the academic field. The release of Richard Dawkins' book The God Delusion to a popular rather than academic audience is an unfortunate cultural step toward the limitation of religious belief.

Many Christians see belief movements like this and assume that we have lost the debate.  The thinking is that if professors and scientists hold a belief, it must be in response to great evidence.  The fact that the new atheism has moved from academia to the populace must mean the atheists won the debate in academia.  This is not true.

In the academic realm, theism (belief in God) is taking new ground.  The argument from atheism used to be: "Look at all this scientific evidence about the age of the earth and how natural law works.  The universe is a closed system of cause and effect.  There is no God, because we know how the universe works."  However, as Albert Einstein awakened us to the reality of atomic and subsequently sub-atomic physics, many scientists and philosophers had to concede that the universe is significantly more complex than we thought.  We now know that we cannot predict every cause and effect action with absolute certainty.  Simply put, we don't know everything.

Beyond that, theism has gained ground recently by shifting apologetic focus from creationism which, like evolution is heavily dependent on interpretation of evidence to the Resurrection which brings its own evidence and leaves little room for debate.  In the academic realm, we are taking ground.  Physicists like Frank Tipler are aligning themselves with Christianity not in spite of the evidence but because of it.  Additionally, we have not ceased to celebrate Antony Flew's turn to theism.  His reason? "I have to go where the evidence leads."  If you read only one of the books I've linked today read There is a 

Why then is the New Atheism gaining popularity while simultaneously losing their debate?  The simple answer is that there is a lot of bad press for theism.  The New Atheism's argument has shrewdly moved from evidential to effectual: "Look at all the suffering in the world caused by religion.  Religion is dangerous to humanity."  Their argument is popular, not because it is true but because it resonates with a world frustrated by terrorism and politically-driven religion.

The big question then is: What do we do about it?

Surprising to many is that Christopher is not the only Hitchens with a book about the existence of God.  Peter Hitchens (Christopher's Brother) recently released The Rage Against God addressing the issue of belief from a theistic perspective.  That's right.  They're brothers and they completely disagree.  I'm not sure why so many are surprised by this.

As Christians, our first response (after brief celebration) is to ask Peter what new argument for God's existence should we use on his brother Christopher.  Keeping in mind the effectual rather than evidential  reasoning behind the new atheism, Peter says something profound: "It is my belief that passions as strong as his are more likely to be countered by the unexpected force of poetry, which can ambush the human heart at any time."  Strange that the most effective response to the most jaded opponents of Christianity is not evidential (though we must have evidence) but relational.

Atheism cannot account for the existence of genuine, unconditional love.  There is no logical reason for a person loving someone who hates them.  Loving your enemy is the irrefutable evidence of Christ in you. I'm not saying we shouldn't rise to the occasion and debate for the truth of God's existence.  The evidence is in our court and we should use it to show that the Truth of God is not afraid to be tested.  Debate with relentless passion for truth, supported rationally with irrefutable evidence, driven by and dripping with love.

Could this be the reason Jesus told us to love our enemies (Matthew 5:43-44)?  At the fear of this statement becoming a bumper-sticker or T-shirt, here's a suggestion:  Prove an atheist wrong today.  Love them.

What made you belief in Christ?  Was it evidence or love?

Emergend?--Part2 "Apologetic Jiu Jitsu"

Reactive theology is a very dangerous thing. In a recent post, I dealt with the universal issue of self-oriented theology (our tendency to re-interpret the Bible to fit opinions and comfort). I used the emergent church as an example and a springboard to highlight this problem that we all have. Unfortunately the issue doesn’t end there. Let me tell you the rest of the story…

Jones ended his lecture with a Q and A (don’t know what I’m talking about? Click here). While I had hoped to see him speak in favor of Scriptural authority, Jones had brought a lot of clarity to our understanding of contemporary western thought and had not outright denied Scripture, Truth or any other core doctrine. This was a great opportunity to glean some wisdom about for ministering to postmodern youth. My hand went up; so did several others.

Several friendly and valuable questions were asked and answered. Some clearly disaggreed with Jones but were genuinely seeking clarity and understanding with Christian unity in mind. I was disapointed that I hadn’t been called on, but things were going well until a middle-aged “baptist curmudgeon” or “BC” (as I will call him) piped in.

Side note: Every Christian should learn Apologetic Jiu Jitsu. When you find you disaggree with someone, your first order of business should be to fiind common ground, some aggreed upon pre-supposition to work from. If both parties are operating from separate pre-suppositions, no one gets aywhere. It turns into a shouting match or a “look-cool-in-front-of-the-audience” match. Apologetic Jiu Jitsu channels the opinion of your “opponent” to convince him of yours. In most cases, this will allow you to either win your friend over or find that you already agree. If not, you can at least end the discussion on good terms with the possibility of ongoing discussion.

BC had apearantly never heard my advice on apologetic jiu jitsu. “Why do you heretics in the emergent church deny absolute truth?” he said. (Note: these were not his exact words. They were, however very cutting with the same implications).

My opportunity to gently and respectfully hear from Jones and bring us both closer to an orthodox view of scripture was sabotodged by a grumpy guy who wasn’t there to make friends. I aggree that Jones wasn’t taking a stand in the way I think he should, but a caustic frontal attack was not going to be effective.

Regardless of his intentions, BC’s tone made it seem like Christian unity and Christ-like love were the furthest thing from his mind. Unfortunately, Jone’s response was not particularly kind either. I can’t say that he was right, but I can’t say that I blame him. He was blindsided at his own lecture. In that situation, I would have either snapped back or use soft-spoken charm to make BC look like the bad guy. Jones managed to do both. The venom came out. Jones refered to a particular group of evangelicals as bordering on heresy. BC had already accused emergents of heresy. Both of these guys got pretty harsh. It was painful and unproductive.

Disclaimer: I believe false doctrine should be confronted (2 Timothy 3:16-17). I just believe it should be done with grace, love, tact and clarity (1 Cor. 13). Seek to understand and then say, “I just don’t think that lines up with what God says in [reference].” Any phrase that leads with, “Why don’t you…” or “you guys are…” doesn’t end well.

I remember sitting there with my hand in the air wishing for a chance to speak. My thesis dealt with the topic of epistemology as it relates to the revealed truth of God, I think I was qualified person to respond to the issue. However, my voice was never heard. In that room only the loudest, angriest (dare I say, least effective) voices were heard. It was very discouraging.

Lest you demonize Tony Jones, remember that he was interupted and accused of heresy in his own workshop. I would have been pretty upset as well. Given the circumstances, I think he kept it pretty civil. There was no yelling or name calling, just venom in the language and tone of both parties. It was clear that both had some hurt related to this topic.

Jones cut off the heated Q and A by saying that he had a plane to catch. He left abruptly. (Not his fault, by the way. He told us at the beginning his flight was early and that he couldn’t stay long after the lecture.)

I left the workshop with my heart on the floor. I had seen what reactive theology cause division. I was broken for the church. My heart was heavy and it was written all over my face. People who didn’t know me stopped to ask if I was ok. I spilled my heart out to a Youth for Christ guy I had met the day before. “The church keeps swinging like a pendulum,” I said. “One generation overcorrects to some extreme and then the next defines their theology in contrast. Someone reacts to that and we are back where we started.” We never seem to get it right. It feels like we are all just reacting to the last guy. Very few are looking at Scripture and genuinely seeking Truth.

Last week I made the statemetn that Emergents are “unwilling to surrender.” I wanted to clarify that this is not true of all of them. I think many are really seeking truth. However, I think in both camps of theology (maybe I should say “every camp”), there is a reactive faction, a group of people that identify their belief in contraversy. They react, distract and refuse to surrender to plain truth. We have these guys in the evangelical camp, and they have them in the emergent camp. We react and fight. All the while, we lose sight of the Great Commission.

So, I’ve listed a few guidelines for interacting with fellow believers who disagree:

Orient: Find a presupposition that you can both agree upon. Here are a few that may work:

o Scripture—inspired and innerrant

o Scripture—reliable historical document

o God—loving, all-powerful, just, etc.

Clarify: When someone disagrees with something you believe, ask them why. Find out if they have any Scripture to back it up. Take some time to read up and research before coming back.

Biblify: Find out what the Bible actually says about the issue.

Time: Don’t feel like you have to convince or be convinced in the moment. If you both care about truth, you should both be willing to allow one another time to look into it. If you really are right, your point can only be served with more research time.

Pray: Ask God to reveal the truth to you.

Relate: Preferably, build relationship before disagreeing. People tend to be more respectful when they know each other as people not as dissidents.

Return: Don’t flee the discussion . Keep coming back with questions and evidence. If you are clearly right, they eather conceid the point or hide from you (I’ve had this happen to me).

Tell us about a time when you changed a belief after a discussion about it?

·

I