I’ve been having some discussions lately with some folk who are a part of “The New Atheists” – a term for a recent movement of confident and assertive atheism coming from a collection of writers that includes Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and others.
Last night I actually watched a debate between William Lane Craig and Cristopher Hitchens on the question, “Does God Exist?”
It has been interesting, I have a lot of thoughts on the contour of the arguments and I’ll probably do a message on the topic in the near future, but one strange thing keeps jumping out at me.
The word “new.”
New is such a funny little word. It is also incredibly powerful.
The social affect of having new in front of something is unmistakable. It connotes freshness, vibrancy, youthfulness, improved, up-to-date and better.
I’m jealous. The Christian always seems to have to give account for Crusades, the Catholic church and the Inquisition and other abuses of power and religion when talking about the faith. We’re stuck with old and barely can get a fresh thought in between all the denials and condemnations we have to make for what others have regrettably done in the name of Christ.
Why can’t we be “The New Christians”?
It might be nice for us to have the word new for a change. We are both Christians and, by definition, opposed to Crusades, Inquisitions and anything that differs from the example set by Jesus – regardless of what people or the church have wrongly done in history.
We don’t blame the atheist down the street for Stalin and the millions killed under Marxist Socialism. Why should we blame the Christian in the pew for the Christian malpractice of the last 2,000 years?
Anyway, I’d love to borrow the force of the word new for just a little bit – it sure would make for nicer conversations.
The force or idea behind new is powerful, and I can see why you’d want to have it. It would make things easier to not have to deal with certain aspects of Christian history. I think though that Christians should be careful about using the word new or seeking something new because we personally are tired of the old. Galatians 1:8 warns of preaching another (new) gospel. The Emerging Church movement uses the word “New” to portray what kind of Christians they are. I wonder what Paul’s response to that movement would be. My guess is he’d lay into them pretty harsh and rebuke a lot of what the “new” stuff is. Probably our best bet is to focus not on the old problems but on each individual’s need for a new life. Skeptics and Athiests all too often focus on the past and lump modern Christians in with all the bad. Our goal should be to point the conversation to the need for their personal newness of life, their need for redemption, becoming new creatures in Christ from their old selves. I don’t imagine Paul went around wasting his time defending or talking about all the problems of Israel’s past, the killings they did and what not. He says he preached Christ and him crucified. What I take from that is he focused on the more important conversation that needed to be had.
I appreciated the example of “new” Christians being blamed for sins of generations past, but atheists get a pass. I suppose we Christians are held to a much higher standard than atheists.
A local guy Dave Hunt from The Berean Call is finishing up a book called “Darwin, Dawking and Human Destiny. It’s going to be a 2 volume book confronting the “New” Atheists. He has written lots of stuff about Dawkins already and you can find those resources at thebereancall.org