By Chaplain Mike

I feel badly that I wasn’t able to follow yesterday’s discussion on our friend Garrett League’s post closely. Fascinating! I especially appreciate that we had some folks who joined us who are strongly convinced of and committed to scientific reasoning, even going so far as to claim that religion cannot give us any meaningful knowledge whatsoever.

Rather than enter into a long apologetic for the possibility of religious knowledge to speak truly about the existence of God, the nature of the universe, the meaning of life, and so on, I think it best to cut right to the chase. A comment by Kyle introduces what I have to say here well:

…Christianity isn’t taken in blind faith, but can be believed based on the historical evidence for its truth claims. Unlike some religions, Christianity claims to be about real people and events that are within the scope of the historical method to analyze and evaluate. Issues such as Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection can be studied and evaluated for their truth claims on the basis of the available evidence.

And the linchpin event for the Christian claim is Jesus’ resurrection.

As Michael Spencer said in his post, “Why I Am a Christian: A Ten Point Argument,”

…the resurrection of Jesus is crucial to my faith. As far as I know, Christianity is the only religion that has an explicitly confessed point of falsification. That is, it tells you, up front, how to disprove it. Read I Corinthians 15:14 and 17: “And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith….And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is foolish.” Now this is significant because it is turning the entire worldview onto its head and standing it on one assertion. If this is disproven, then the whole structure collapses.

One of the most thorough recent studies of this critical event is The Resurrection of the Son of God (Christian Origins and the Question of God, Vol. 3), by N.T. Wright. Wright concludes that the bodily resurrection of Jesus is the best explanation of the historical data. He doesn’t claim “proof” as the result of his study. He sees his conclusions as a challenge to other historical explanations. One of yesterday’s commenters who argued strongly that scientific inquiry alone can give us accurate knowledge wrote: “Things are either evidentially supported as likely to be accurate…or not. And it is not all that difficult to make that evaluation. Either the evidence is consistent with the hypothesis you are examining or it isn’t. Either the hypothesis you are examining is validly constructed to enable you to meaningfully evaluate it, or it is not.” On the basis of his research, Wright finds the Christian claim of Jesus’ resurrection supported by the evidence as the most likely explanation.

The following video summarizes one of Wright’s strongest arguments for accepting the early Christian claim that Jesus was raised bodily from the dead in a transformed body:

The early Christians did not invent the empty tomb and the “meetings” or “sightings” of the risen Jesus in order to explain a faith they already had. They developed that faith because of the occurrence, and convergence, of these two phenomena. Nobody was expecting this kind of thing; no kind of conversion-experience would have generated such ideas; nobody would have invented it, no matter how guilty (or how forgiven) they felt, no matter how many hours they pored over the scriptures. …In terms of the kind of proof which historians normally accept, the case we have presented, that the tomb-plus-appearances combination is what generated early Christian belief, is as watertight as one is likely to find.

…The widespread belief and practice of the early Christians is only explicable if we assume that they all believed that Jesus was bodily raised, in an Easter event something like the stories the gospels tell; the reason they believed that he was bodily raised is because the tomb was empty and, over a short period thereafter, they encountered Jesus himself, giving every appearance of being bodily alive once more. (Resurrection, 686-710)

By Chaplain Mike

UPDATE: Coffee Cup Apologetics podcast #15 is available here. Thank you to those who sent it to Chaplain Mike!

It has been good to hear Michael Spencer’s voice again in recent days. No, I was not caught up into the third heaven, nor was I granted a dream or vision. I’m talking about the fact that we can still access the iMonk’s teaching, insight, passion, and humor through listening to his podcasts.

Specifically, there is an entire series of Coffee Cup Apologetics recordings that are available for our continuing edification and to help us in conversations we might have with our neighbors when questions about the Christian faith are raised.

The concept of “Coffee Cup Apologetics” is simple. These are not scholarly defenses of the faith, but rather the kinds of insights that can help us when we are having informal discussions with friends. They are “apologetic” insights—not designed to persuade someone to believe (that’s evangelism), but rather to demonstrate to an inquirer that our faith is reasonable, based on adequate evidence and rational thinking. A person need not check his or her brains at the door to become a Christian.

You can access and download the Coffee Cup Apologetics podcasts through iTunes, or by going to the CCApologetics website, where you can see a brief explanation of each of the fifty episodes.

NOTE: One of the Coffee Cup Apologetics podcasts—#15—is inaccessible. If someone out there has a copy of this, I would love to have it and make it available. Please contact Chaplain Mike using the email link at the top of the page.

Of course, you can also download and listen to many of the Internet Monk Radio podcasts. Unfortunately, these are not all available, but you can still access some of the original episodes.

A few of the final podcasts are still available on iTunes. You can get podcasts #100-167 individually by clicking the Podcast link at the top of the IM page.  Clark Bunch, at his blog, The Master’s Table, has a tab where you can access podcasts 48-81.

Once again, if you have additional podcasts that you have saved, we would love to retrieve as many of them as possible. Please contact Chaplain Mike.

Michael Spencer Still Speaks
These podcasts complement the Internet Monk blog and go beyond what is written here. They reveal the heart and mind of a friend who reveled in the grace of God through Christ, and who shared that generously with all of us. We are thankful to live in a day when technology is available so that Michael’s voice can still speak.

By Chaplain Mike

The other evening, we posted an Open Mic discussion based on a situation I faced in my ministry. Here is a recap of the experience I described:

It is a rare conversation that cuts right to the heart of the matter. It happened to me the other day.

I was visiting a terminally ill patient who was actively dying. Her granddaughter had come to see her, and as I entered the room I observed her talking with the doctor, upset at the sight of her grandma dying, wiping away tears, asking anguished questions. The doctor departed and I introduced myself. In return, she briefly told me her story—Her father had committed suicide over a decade ago, when she was a teenager. Shortly after that, her grandmother had a stroke and was placed in a nursing home. That was the last time the young woman had seen her. Today that changed. After more than ten years, she had driven several hours to visit and finally face all the emotions, now rising up and choking her like fine dust from the place she had tamped them down for so long.

She asked me a little more about myself, and my ministry. Then, these words: “I don’t mean to offend you, but may I ask you a question?”

“Sure,” I said.

Looking me directly in the eyes, she asked the most basic question, “Why do you believe in God?”

And that’s when I blew it.

That’s right, the chaplain blew it. Oh sure, I gave an OK answer. I said something like:

Well, first of all, when I look at the world God made and think about the wonders of creation, I just can’t bring myself to believe that it all came from nothing. And then, second, as a Christian, I believe in Jesus, and I have become convinced that he came to us, died, was buried, and rose again so that we might know that God and his love for us is real.

Not bad. A fair and concise summary of my apologetics. Creation declares the existence and glory of God (Romans 1:20). Jesus, “the only Son, who is close to the Father’s heart, has made him known” (John 1:18).

Then I asked her, “What about you?” And she said, with little emotion, “I gave up on him long ago.”

I felt constrained to address that, and my reply ran along a path I’ve found helpful before: “I know you’ve been through some very painful experiences and that you have a lot of questions. I don’t claim to understand why these things have happened. But I believe it is better to go through such things with God to help me, rather than thinking I’m all alone. Does that make sense?”

She nodded. And that was the end of the conversation.

Like I said, I blew it.

My “answer” was not what this woman needed at that moment.

I’m ashamed to admit it. I think about how to minister to hurting people all the time. I teach others about it, I write about it, try hard to do it well. But on this day, when push came to shove, at the moment of relating to someone face to face in a specific situation, I missed the signals and failed to truly love this hurting woman in a way that might have helped her deal with her painful faith questions.

What were my mistakes?

• Number one: Though I understand and try to practice “pastoral presence” in situations with folks every day, this time I failed to let myself be completely “in the moment”. I like to think I’m a sensitive person, and that I have the capacity to act compassionately toward others in a way that is appropriate to the context of our conversations. Perhaps on this day it was because the scene has become so familiar to me: a hospital room, a dying patient in the bed, a grieving family member paying a visit. Maybe it was because I had dealt with other members of the family prior to this conversation, thought I had a grasp on their issues, concluded I knew what was going on. For whatever reason, I heard what this granddaughter said, but I didn’t adequately process it, didn’t give it time to resonate within my mind and heart. I opened my mouth before I gave full attention to what was going on.

• Number two: I forgot that when a hurting person asks, “Why?”, they aren’t really looking for an answer. “Why?” is more often than not an expression of pain, not an intellectual inquiry. When this young woman turned to me and asked, “Why do you believe in God?”, she was not asking for proof, a testimony of my experience, or anything to satisfy her understanding. She was making a statement: “I can’t believe in a God who would do this to people!” She was crying out like a psalmist, “What kind of God would allow fathers who have teenagers to take their own lives, would sanction incapacitating strokes that put beloved grandmothers in nursing homes for decades, would put people through long death vigils that drain all joy and hope and patience from a family’s heart?” I guess I was simply so stunned by the directness of her question about faith in God that my brain shifted into its default position: when someone asks you a question, you give an answer. Wrong.

• Number three: I forgot that my job, most of the time, is not to give answers, but to help people get their own answers from God. There is obviously a place and time for imparting information. This was not that place and time. This woman would have been better served if I had been more quiet, a better listener, a friend who asked a few probing questions to draw her out and help her express the pain and disappointment she was feeling. Hurting folks are rarely helped simply by someone (especially a stranger!) saying something to them. They need companions who will walk with them on their journey, give them time and space to work through their thoughts and feelings, talk things out, gain perspective. I failed to respect the process, and as a result I did not participate in it in the most helpful way.

I am not saying God can’t use the words I said. They represented truth. Despite a lack of listening and my premature answer-giving, I hope the young woman heard something that might help her. After all, if God were only allowed to work through us when we do it right, where would we be?

But God has not called us merely to speak truth. He wants us to “speak truth in love” (Eph 4:15).

In reflecting upon the way this situation went, I’ve since imagined what it might have been like if I’d been more of a friend and pastor to this young woman.

• Instead of immediately answering her question, I might have been quiet for a few moments, and then reflected back what I heard her really saying, or posed my own question in response: “I hear you saying that it’s hard for you to believe in God. What’s that like?” or, “Before I answer your question, is it OK if I ask you something? You have obviously been through some painful things. How has that affected what you think about God? Where do you think he has been as you’ve gone through these difficult experiences?”

• Before answering her question, I might have reassured her by saying it is OK to have doubts about God, to be angry with God, to feel like she had been abandoned by God. I might read her a verse or two from a psalm that expresses anguish and a sense of God’s absence. I would ask her if this is how she feels, and try to help her see that this is not abnormal, but part of our common human experience.

• I might have asked her if she had anything in her own words that she would like to say to God. I might tell her I would be happy to serve as his representative, and encourage her to say those things to me.

• Maybe after letting her think and talk through some of these things, I would be able to tell her about Jesus and how he makes God known to us.

Christians are taught to give answers. However, the process by which those answers become effective in helping others is rarely delineated. In our culture we tend to think in terms of technology and production. A problem appears, I solve it. A question is asked, I answer it. And that’s that.

But what if we thought more in old-fashioned agricultural terms—of preparing the ground, sowing seed, cultivating a crop, and (only then) harvesting the fruit? What if we thought more about giving attention to the little signs along the way that might require a little hoeing here, a bit of watering there, watching out daily for pests or spots of disease that must be dealt with?

Or we tend to be academic. But what if we conceptualized the whole “ministry” thing less in terms of books and outlines and classrooms and tests, and thought more about friends walking together, talking freely and honestly, listening to each other, challenging one another, allowing each other time and space to think and grow and work through problems.

We have the answers. Do we have the patience of the Spirit…

• to let life work the way it does,
• to let other people be where they are, and
• to accept that our task is to humbly participate in what God is doing rather than thinking we must do it ourselves?

On that day, I lacked that patience. As a result, I may have been a “miserable comforter”.

Kyrie eleison!

Question posed by Chaplain Mike

It is a rare conversation that cuts right to the heart of the matter. It happened to me the other day.

I was visiting a terminally ill patient who was actively dying. Her granddaughter had come to see her, and as I entered the room I observed her talking with the doctor, upset at the sight of her grandma dying, wiping away tears, asking anguished questions. The doctor departed and I introduced myself. In return, she briefly told me her story—Her father had committed suicide over a decade ago, when she was a teenager. Shortly after that, her grandmother had a stroke and was placed in a nursing home. That was the last time the young woman had seen her. Today that changed. After more than ten years, she had driven several hours to visit and finally face all the emotions, now rising up and choking her like fine dust from the place she had tamped them down for so long.

She asked me a little more about myself, and my ministry. Then, these words: “I don’t mean to offend you, but may I ask you a question?”

“Sure,” I said.

Looking me directly in the eyes, she asked the most basic question, “Why do you believe in God?”

In today’s Open Mic, I am asking you to put yourself in my shoes at that moment.

What will your answer be?

Here are the rules:

• Realize this: you only have a short space of time. Three or four sentences at the most. One paragraph. No time to delineate the classic proofs for the existence of God.

• Keep the situation in mind. ‘Nuff said.

• You are welcome to add one additional paragraph explaining to the rest of us why you answered as you did.

• If you are a person who does not believe in God, you have one paragraph to tell us how you might try to bring comfort to this young woman, and then a second to explain your reasoning.

• You are welcome to reply to other posts, but my preference is that you give an answer first before responding to your fellow participants. (I only state it that way because I won’t be monitoring the discussion every single second. I’d appreciate adherence to my wishes, OK?) I also ask that you keep your replies to other posts brief, a paragraph or two. We’re working on being concise here. It’s a valuable asset in many conversations.
  

Got it? This should be fun. Every once in awhile, it’s good to go back and think about the basics.

This weekend, as we mourn Michael Spencer’s passing, thank God for the hope of eternal life, and comfort one another in our time of loss, IM will feature classic posts from the Internet Monk.

Why I Am a Christian—Ten Reasons

Why am I a Christian? How about a quick survey of the more popular possible answers.

• Spencer is a Christian because its the dominant religion in his culture. It enforces the value system he has grown up in, and if you are going to have some foundation for what it means to be a “good person” in North America, Christianity is still the majority game in town, especially if you’re a white male conservative Republican.

• Spencer is a Christian because he is too cowardly to face the fact that God just isn’t there and the harder truth that death is it. Back to atoms and molecules. No reward or punishment. No heaven or life after death. He can’t swallow that so he’s leaning on the crutch of religion, and Christianity is a great crutch.

• Spencer is a Christian because he wants Christianity to be true. It gives his life meaning and allows him to say he is right and others are wrong. He needs it to be true, especially the part about the Bible being true, because he gets paid the big bucks to talk about the Bible all the time.

And on we go. So now that I have given the alternative explanations a fair hearing, I want to make my case. Since most everything we write around here stands on some portion of our various understandings of the Christian worldview, I think it’s just fair to say, as plainly as possible, why we are coming from this point of view.

As intellectually interesting as the three options above seem to be, the fact is that I would not be a Christian if I were not personally convinced it were true. I could make more money if I weren’t a Christian. If I were convinced of the underlying truth of any of the above options, I wouldn’t leave my wife and kids, but you can be sure I would make some immediate changes in the fabric of my life. If I weren’t convinced of the truth of Christianity, I wouldn’t saddle my kids with all the baggage of a religious upbringing. And I sure would be happy- thrilled- to unhook myself from the organized church. New Age spirituality, Buddhism, Unitarianism: hey, they would all lower my blood pressure 10 points. Yet, here I am. One of those Christians, second cousin to Paul and Jan Crouch and the rest of the TBN zoo. Why, Oh why Oh why?

In presenting my personal belief system to my students, I have developed a simple ten point outline. I will share that here and make a few comments, but if you want the whole deal unpacked, e-mail me and I will send you a tape or something. I put this together with brevity in mind, but I’m not cutting corners.

So here we go.

Why I Am a Christian

1. It is reasonable that God might exist.
2. Further, it is reasonable (based on the evidence) that this God who might exist might be personal and therefore have communicated with human beings.
3. The world’s religions are a reasonable place to look for evidence of such communication.
4. Among those representing the world religions, Jesus of Nazareth seems to hold the consensus as the person most likely to provide convincing evidence of the God who might exist. (Since Jesus is- in some way- incorporated into all major world religions. If all the world’s religious leaders were locked in a basement until they could elect only one person to represent the best of their beliefs, I believe Jesus would be the person selected.)
5. The resurrection of Jesus is a reasonable explanation for the existence of Christianity as a distinct belief system from Judaism.
6. An examination of the various alternatives and existing evidence convinces me that the Resurrection is, in fact, true.
7. If the Rez is true, then Jesus’ statements about himself, God, Truth, Sin, etc. (The Christian worldview) are true by deduction.
8. Based on this conclusion, I relate to the God who I now believe exists through Jesus.
9. My experience matches what Jesus describes, providing personal verification of the truth of Christianity.
10. Based on Pascal’s wager, I await eventual verification of this conclusion after death, but haven’t lost anything if I am wrong.

First, for my skeptical friends, I know this outline can be faulted a hundred different ways, so its not that I haven’t thought of your objection before. This is simply the way I put it all together for me.
Secondly, the resurrection of Jesus is crucial to my faith. As far as I know, Christianity is the only religion that has an explicitly confessed point of falsification. That is, it tells you, up front, how to disprove it. Read I Corinthians 15:14 and 17: “And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith….And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is foolish.” Now this is significant because it is turning the entire worldview onto its head and standing it on one assertion. If this is disproven, then the whole structure collapses. Try to get someone in the New Age or atheism to give you a similar statement of falsification.

Third, there are only a finite number of possibilities for what happened to Jesus. 1) He never existed. (Disproven by the testimony of his first century enemies, who accepted his existence.) 2) He purposely faked his resurrection (which means he was an evil genius. Hardly plausible given what we know of his life.) 3) The resurrection is a mistake or hallucination. (The transformation and experience of the disciples cannot be explained by a mistake and mass hallucinations do not happen on this level.) 4) The disciples faked it. (No motive and not capable of doing it. Read the Gospels!)  5) He never actually died, but just passed out and recovered. (No possible way this could have happened.) 6) Jesus rose from the dead and appeared to his disciples. Given everything that must be explained, 1-5 fail, leaving 6 as the only possibility that explains all aspects of the sudden birth of early Christianity out of Judaism.

Fourth, while my personal experience proves nothing, it is important if my personal experience matches the experience described in the Bible. This is often overlooked. For example, the Bible says we are persons made in God’s image, but fallen into sin. This has great explanatory power for what we see in actual human beings, and beats the pants off any other view of human nature. Also, the transformative aspect of Christianity may be easily discounted because of hypocrisy and outright evil on the part of Christians, but the evidence of a conversion such as St.Paul, St. Francis, C.S. Lewis, Charles Colson, even Jane Fonda, is not to be set aside. It is exactly what Jesus described and effected during his life.

Fifth, I believe strongly that the inclusion of Jesus in the belief systems of non-Christian religions (such as Buddhism and the New Age) gives real credence to my assertion that Jesus is the most likely place to look for the truth about God and the resurrection is the key to our view of Jesus. If the Resurrection is true, then all of Jesus’ teaching and assertions can be used as authoritative, because he is the Son of God as he claimed to be.

Finally, Pascal’s wager is critical to this argument. The great French Mathematician and Christian wrote that if we “wager” that there is no God, and we are right, we win nothing. If we “wager” that God exists, and we are wrong, we lose nothing. If, however, we wager that God exists and we are correct, the payoff is inestimable. If we wager there is no God, and we wrong, we lose everything and more than everything. Therefore, even if the argument is not flawless, it leads to a position that allows anyone to sleep more soundly.

So there is the argument. I invite any response and certainly hope those you share my conclusions will use the outline freely.

Today, Chaplain Mike posts this note that was sent to iMonk. How would you try to help this inquirer?

Mr. Spencer,

In the past few months of my life something has driven me towards Christianity. I can’t exactly say what, I believe it to be a combination of things but it has lead me to hours of research, mostly in the field of apologetics. I’ve never been a Christian and was not raised in a Christian family. If anything I would say that I’ve always been agnostic. Throughout my years, I’ve been a student of philosophy and religion. I’ve studied most modern philosophy, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam and various other world religions but have never followed one and have never been drawn towards Christianity. Like many my age, I grew up in a place where Christianity was considered “un-cool”. None of my friends were Christian and even today I have few who are. Yet, recently something has peaked my interest in God and Jesus Christ.

To get to the point, my problem is not that I don’t want to believe, it’s that I’m caught in the middle.

I’ve been studying all of the apologetic arguments that you and other resources offer. I find your personal approach to apologetics very approachable and easy to digest but essentially your answers are the same as all of the other apologetic resources I’ve studied (this is not a criticism, just a way to show that there are unified theories surrounding the answers that you provide). You have logical, reasonable answers for every aspect of Christianity. All of the theories on the existing of A God and of The God, The Bible, Jesus Christ, Creationism, etc. are there and make sense but there are rebuttals to these by atheists and skeptics that are just as logical and reasonable.

For example, the cosmological argument is sound, until you consider the other side. There are arguments against this theory suggesting that causality should only be applied to our world and experience, that the “first” creator does not need to be intelligent and that modern science has demonstrated that there are objects on a molecular level that can and do move without a “mover”. Regarding The Bible, should we approach it literally? There is a great debate over the accuracy of biblical translations and the translations of keywords, phrases and verses can easily change the interpretation. These are just a couple of (very brief) examples of counter-arguments to common theories I’ve seen. There are detailed arguments against the teleological argument, the axiological argument, the idea that Jesus Christ is the son of God and on and on.

My point is that regardless of how much research I do, regardless of what Christians or Atheists attempt to prove, there is no absolute way to prove or disprove the existence of any God. This being said, there is no absolute way to prove or disprove that Jesus Christ is the son of God, was resurrected, ascended to Heaven and is the only way to eternal salvation. At some point, it has to come down to what you believe. Eventually, you have to make a choice.

That is where I’ve always been stuck. I’ve never been able to make a choice, never been able to choose sides and this is arguably the worst place to be. My skepticism is so severe that I am skeptical of every view and nothing has ever convinced me or spoken to me in a way that made me see one view as truth. You may point out that my apparent random interest in Christianity may be evidence enough but to me, that’s explainable in a myriad of ways. The thing is, I want to believe. It just seems like I can’t.

I am hoping that you may be able to shed some light on my situation or at least give your opinion on my thoughts.

Thank you for your time,

[Name withheld]

I received two letters this week from friends/readers asking for input and advice on relating to atheists in their workplace/families. It brought to mind a number of things I’ve been wanting to say about evangelicals and their take on atheism.

When I was growing up in a fundamentalist Baptist church, the face of atheism was Madalyn Murray O’Hair. I knew three things about O’Hair: she had taken prayer and the Bible out of our public schools, she was trying to get religious programs off of television and she was a weirdo.

For years, O’Hair provided the face of atheism to America: an angry, ranting, God-hating, bitter old woman who wanted to force her bitterness on the rest of the country. The way to defeat O’Hair was simple: Christians needed to sign a lot of petitions and vote the right way when elections came around.

It was safe to say that few people wanted to be like Mrs. O’Hair, no matter what their case against God and religion happened to be.

In my collection of videos I have another face of atheism. It’s a “debate” between Frank Zinnser, an atheist and geologist from Chicago, and Dr. William Lane Craig and his three Ph.ds. It takes place at Willow Creek Community Church in front of a massive crowd of Christians. Zinnser is awkward and amateurish, raising freshman level objections to the Bible that have nothing to do with the case for atheism. Craig, polished, erudite, prepared and pracitced, mops the floor with Zinnser’s bad toupee and worse presentation. It’s a demolition job that’s hard to watch.

At one point Zinnser notes that there’s a bigger crowd for this debate than the usual attendance at the atheist luncheon. I’m sure.

The message for evangelicals: atheists are clowns. We can defeat them in any arena. We need not fear them because our team can eat their lunch.

I have a shelf of books responding to atheism. Ravi Zacharias. William Lane Craig. Tim Keller. No one can accuse evangelicals of ignoring the subject. Many of these books are written in response to the publishing onslaught of the new atheists: Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, Dennett and many others.

One way the game has changed is that when you proclaim yourself an atheist today, you aren’t signing up with O’Hair and Zinnser and the atheist luncheon in the Chihuahua Room at the Peoria Super 8. Now you are identifying with respected scientists and journalists. Whether you agree with the new atheists rantings about the threat of religion to the world or not, it’s a lot easier to be an atheist. When John Lennox debated Richard Dawkins in the Birmingham Civic Center, Dawkins was cheered like a rock star by a very young crowd.

But I’m convinced the game is not primarily about arguments any more. As grateful as I am for Tim Keller’s great book The Reason For God and his two hour presentations on You Tube, and as happy as I am that David Bentley Hart and others have convincingly demonstrated the fallacies of the new atheist arguments, the truth is that the contemporary atheist doesn’t plan to play a game of 21 with our NBA All Stars. No, he/she is going to sound more like Ricky Gravais in the video above.

Atheism is just….easier. Occam’s Razor. Theism is too much trouble. It starts to sound like someone is trying to sell you something sight unseen. Isn’t your best move just to hang up the phone and ignore the call?

Douglas Wilson may be witty and William Lane Craig may be brilliant. John Lennox may teach at Oxford and Ravi Zacharias may be able to quote a dozen philosophers, but most atheist young people today are like Brad Pitt. Pitt was a kid walking the aisles in Baptist revivals, trying to find God in that mess when he met a Methodist preacher’s daughter who told him it was OK to just say no to it all. He didn’t have to live like that. He could call the torture sessions off and just be himself.

That’s what’s going on, my friends. I’m not zeroing out the big gunners, but I think it’s time to stop running from your kid’s professor and start thinking more about his friend who recently left his youth group and stop believing anything except the joys of rock climbing.

One of my letters this week stated that a 17 year old raised in an evangelical family was now an avid atheist, with many of the hijinks of evangelicalism as evidence of manipulation and control. He couldn’t mean take off your shoes and spin your socks over your head while singing “Jesus mess me up?” Why would that bother anyone?

Write this down: When the coming evangelical collapse happens, and especially when thousands of our young people bolt for non-believer status, a lot of it will be COMPLETELY DESERVED.

We addressed atheism with the wrong arguments. We didn’t ask ourselves how it looks to a young atheist. We never stopped to notice that if you are a 17 year old with serious questions about evil, miracles, prayer and the Bible you’ve got small chances of getting any help from most of evangelicalism. We’re having too much fun squalling at the President and feeling good about ourselves . By the time you find that book, talk, ministry, etc. that might help, you’re already beginning to suspect that this is the emergency room where doubters are taken for emergency injections of how powerful anti-atheism drugs and then sent back to the “Bless Us Real Good” Game.

Even traditions with deep and serious reflection on the issues that erode faith often keep those resources tucked safely away in a closet on the fourth floor of the house of faith where you have to ask permission to see them. Senior Youth Group: Visit atheists for a conversation or play Goofy Golf? Duh.

Our team looks good to us. Trust me, they don’t look that good to atheists. If you applaud the point-scoring at debates, you’re missing the point entirely. The fact that someone like Dan Barker (and there are dozens more) is out there at all, making it plain that the Christian journey has brought a crowd of people just like YOU to the point where atheism looked far, far better than what you were hearing in church and trying to live is all the ammunition that’s needed for thousands of people.

You see, evangelicals have made such outrageous assumptions and promises about happiness, healing, everything working out, knowing God, answered prayer, loving one another and so on that proving us to be liars isn’t even a real job. It’s just a matter of tuning in to an increasing number of voices who say “It’s OK to not believe. Give yourself a break. Stop tormenting yourself trying to believe. Stop propping up your belief with more and more complex arguments. Just let go of God.”

You can send an army against an army. What do you send against a group saying “None of this has any point. Give it up and go have a coke.”

Don’t think I am avoiding the case the new atheists are making. I take it very seriously. My students learn the Dawkins and Hitchens arguments by heart. They are deserving of the best responses we can put forward and we need to know what they are saying.

But I don’t believe the new atheists are making converts because they have a better argument. I think they are making converts because the fruit is ripe to fall from the tree, and we have little or no idea it’s happening. We’re setting up for the great ideological debate and the kids have found that it’s just more fun to have a drink with the non-religious crew.

Keller is still great. C.S.Lewis is still helpful. Craig is still impressive. But I’m not sure their arguments are on the right channel. Vast numbers of people aren’t asking for philosophy. They are asking what will let them live a life uncomplicated by lies, manipulation and constant calls to prefer ignorance to what seems obvious.

What we’ve said and written is fine. What we’ve lived in our homes, private lives, churches, workplaces and friendships has spoken louder.

We are the ones who appear to not believe in the God we say is real. We are the ones who seem to be forcing ourselves to believe with bigger shows, bigger celebrities and bigger methods of manipulation.

You can’t understand why some people just say atheism has about it the beauty of simplicity? You don’t see why Occam’s Razor is so powerful, even among students who have no idea what it means?

Pay closer attention. The game has changed.

Bumper Music by Greenroom, “Spy Beats.”

The podcast web site is Coffee Cup Apologetics.

Bumper Music by Greenroom, “Spy Beats.”

The podcast web site is Coffee Cup Apologetics.

Bumper Music by Greenroom, “Spy Beats.”

The podcast web site is Coffee Cup Apologetics.