Insufferably Rude?
by Suzanne Hadley Gosselin on 10/01/2007 at 11:11 AM
In a recent blog post, Dr. Al Mohler considers atheists' various reactions to the Bible. He points out that sacred text is a legitimate problem for them:
God may be declared dead or non-existent, but the Bible remains very clearly existent by the atheist's bed in the hotel room. Just open the drawer and it is there. Then the atheist author goes to his book signing party at the bookstore and nearby shelves are filled with Bibles for sale. What's the atheist to do?
Christopher Hitchens, author of God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, employs the strategy of assault. He dismisses the Bible as "fairy tales posing as divine scripture." But Carlin Romano, a professor and literary critic who teaches at the University of Pennsylvania, believes in a kinder, gentler approach. Mohler writes:
Most seem to reject [the Bible] outright, often with vitriol. After reviewing arguments and selected quotations from aggressive atheists, Romano suggests that throwing stones at books believers consider to be sacred is not a good public strategy.
Sound familiar? It did to me. Last week, I quoted pastor Mark Driscoll saying: "Culture is the house that people live in, and it just seems really mean to keep throwing rocks at somebody's house." Romano is essentially saying the same thing. In the Chronicle of Higher Education, Romano writes:
In advanced, progressive, tolerant societies, we also don't go up to strangers and tell them that they're ugly, that their children are repulsive, that their clothes don't match, that they need a bath, that the leisure activity they're engaged in is stupid and a waste of time. In the same way, atheists should not, unprovoked, go on and on about how sacred texts lack God's imprimatur.
Both sides seem to have qualms about acknowledging the major -- and politically incorrect -- issues that put them at odds. Mohler concludes:
Strange as it may seem, I think I like Christopher Hitchens' approach better. Hitchens at least understands what is at stake. This really isn't about etiquette. Christians are to be kind and gracious, but the offense of the Gospel remains. It is not considered polite to tell persons that they are sinners destined for hell. Etiquette would demand that Christians abandon the claim that Jesus is the only Savior and that the Gospel is the only message that saves. Such claims are, in our modern context, considered insufferably rude.
Even atheists are shy about "throwing rocks." It's interesting to realize both sides are experiencing the same tension. Mohler suggests that Christians understand the limits of etiquette: "The Bible demands obedience and belief, not insincere compliments."
1. Ken said the following at 11:44 AM on Oct 1:
I've always found Christopher Hitchens to be a ghastly figure in the Athiest movement.
He's akin to someone who tries to change peoples minds via brute force instead of dialogue.
While reading his books and other commentary, I can't help but walk away feeling this is just a really angry man with nothing of worth to say.
It's unfortunate because it is this disposition of his that will drive away those who might find some thoughtful prose.
2. Sara said the following at 1:38 PM on Oct 1:
It isn't difficult to acknowledge the physical existence of a Bible on a shelf at the same time as denying the existance of a god.
It's a common misconception that atheists care deeply and/or are moved or troubled by Christian paraphrenalia lying around their environment.
When other people's opinions get pushed on them, though, that's when things get 'vitriolic'. Yet, Christians, of course, value spreading the gospel more than they do 'being polite'. There's no possible resolution to the problem without all Christians going soft, or all atheists converting.
3. Kay said the following at 2:58 PM on Oct 1:
Then my vote is for all the atheists converting! :)
4. nikki said the following at 3:50 PM on Oct 1:
I don't know many atheists personally, but I'd guess the loud, mean ones that we hear so much of might be the exception...that is, they are well-known because they are obnoxious or provocative. It's like assuming all conservatives are as sarcastic as Ann Coulter...that's not the case; she just gets attention for being that way. It's just a guess. There are plenty of angry, vitriolic Christians and sensitive, kind agnostics: I don't think religious beliefs, or lack thereof, usually follow personality/disposition lines.
inre: Sara's post, I just think of the quote (can't remember who said it) that goes something like this: "the gospel is offensive enough without our adding to it." In other words, it's "rude" enough to go around believing people are going to hell. But if something must offend, let it be God's words and not ours. (Atheists have no "other" to invoke though, so I guess any rudeness is their own. :))
5. John said the following at 6:14 PM on Oct 1:
Atheists don't deny the existence of a god, only, they deny the existence of God as well.
Atheists do not like bibles anywhere near them.
Atheists can't stand anyone to deny their opinion or show how it is illogical and false. They get "vitriolic' any time someone does this. There beliefs are a house of cards that is very fragile, which they must guard or have their entire world flipped upside down. That's why they're very aggressive.
Christians do not value spreading the gospel more than being polite.
The resolution to the problem is to allow civil discourse, not agry illogical arguements that atheists so commonly resort to.
6. Amir Larijani said the following at 6:13 AM on Oct 2:
Hitchens is a third-rate writer and a fourth-rate intellect who has not undertaken the effort to analyze (a) the causes of wars in history, (b) the comparison among secular versus quasi-Christian governments in history, (c) the contributions of Christianity versus the telos of secularism, and (d) the parasitic stealing of Christian values and presenting them as secular "enlightenment" by secularists.
Fact is, (a) religion in general has been a very low empirical cause of war in historical terms, (b) secular governments have been responsible for the largest wholesale slaughter of citizens over and above any quasi-Christian government, (c) Christians formed the first Universities, first hospitals, provided the impetus for the Abolition movement, and--even today--have been shown to give charitably 4 times as much as their secular counterparts, and (d) most of the positive values claimed by "enlightenment" philosophers are in fact rooted in Judaeo-Christian Scripture.
Vox Day, in his upcoming book, The Irrational Atheist, takes Hitchens and his other contemporaries--Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris--to task. In it, Day describes--in extreme detail--the very points I am summarizing (especially with respect to war and governments) and then some. He has also made some very strong points regarding the hijacking of science by the militant Atheists.
Thomas Sowell, in Black Rednecks and White Liberals, makes the points I am making with respect to Abolition.
7. Amir Larijani said the following at 6:23 AM on Oct 2:
Sara: I disagree.
We live in an ideological free market, and I heartily support the rights of Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, and other Militant Atheists, to compete however they wish in this market. As a Christian, I hardly see them as a threat to the Church. After all, Jesus said the gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church.
The same Constitution that allows the Militant Atheist to ruminate and bloviate, also allows the Christian to proclaim the Gospel freely.
Indeed, free markets are all about freedom.
Let Hitchens rant, and let the evangelist preach.
Christians need not "go soft"--which I take to mean "stop preaching"--nor must Atheists "convert". Not receiving Christ has very real spiritual consequences, but I'm all for a person's choice to reject the Gospel without the persecution of man.
After all, if a person has the choice to reject the Gospel, that same person has the choice to receive the Gospel.
(Disclosure: While I am a proponent of Reform Theology, when I discuss "rights" I am doing so in societal/political terms, not spiritual ones. Ergo, I am not undermining any doctrine of Election, but rather making the case for a free society.)
8. Sara said the following at 10:19 AM on Oct 2:
Hi Amir. I don't think we disagree on anything... When I said either Christians have to stop pushing their views, or atheists have to convert, I meant to say, either one of those has to happen for there to not be tension between the groups.
John wrote of atheists,
"There beliefs are a house of cards that is very fragile, which they must guard or have their entire world flipped upside down. That's why they're very aggressive."
That's what a lot of atheists think about Christians, only in place of 'are very aggressive', substitute 'will only go so far in an argument before folding and saying, 'oh, well, God is above reason'.
Besides, a person's beliefs being as fragile as a pack of cards doesn't necessarily say anything about the strength or the weakness of the actual object of the belief.
9. brx said the following at 11:21 AM on Oct 2:
John, I think you appear to make some rather unfair blanket judgements.
I've personally known some pretty sharp witted (smart, quick thinkers) athiests and I can say that you'd better be a philosophy ace to even have a chance when going up against them on the logical front. Keep in mind that God left plenty of academic room for people to choose.
As I've gotten to know some athiests, I notice the root of their anger is often a deep hurt from the hypocritical actions of one or more people who call themselves Christians.
Some "Christians" do seem to love self-righteousness more than they love their neighbors. And less obvious, some "Christians" do think themselves to be better than non-Christians.
When we Christians preach the Gospel, we need to be concious of whether we are loving our neighbor - and enemies - in an effective manner. The Gospel may be offensive to some, but offensiveness is NOT the measure of how well we are doing at following Christ.
10. Chris said the following at 8:30 PM on Oct 2:
John writes:
Atheists do not like bibles anywhere near them.
Interesting blanket statement. Please provide proof of this claim.
11. Kathryn said the following at 12:06 AM on Oct 3:
Chris, I'm a part of a club at uni that maintains a high atheist membership. Thankfully, there are 3 other regular Christian members that are an encouragement to me.
One day in the club room, some of the atheist members start throwing around a NT and making loud noises about how offensive they found it. One member even screaming when it came in her direction and became very angry that it was near her. Us Christians stood up though, and asked them to be more respectful, and another atheist even told them off for their offensive behaviour towards us.
Should not be a blanket statement, but certainly true for some.
With most atheist friends though, I maintain a "I am right, you are wrong, but we can still be friends and debate this in a friendly and kind manner" relationship, which I feel I am very blessed with; it gives me the opportunity to talk to people about what I believe and why, whilst also hearing their points of view on such topics