The Telegraph carried an article about famed anti-theist, Richard Dawkins. Dawkins has been a voice in strong opposition to Christianity in public life. Amusingly, the writer likens Dawkins to Paul on the Damascus road, because recently Dawkins "came out" as a "cultural Christian." No, he's not a convert. But he realized that he likes living in a "Christian society" and bemoans that the decline of Christian values has unleashed terrible new gods. Apparently the utopia an atheist worldview would bring hasn't materialized, and a more malevolent and less reasonable one has emerged. In Scotland these days, for instance, citing biological facts regarding sex can get you in trouble with the police because Scotland has seen one of the fastest falls from Christianity. Not an improvement.
It's interesting, isn't it, that you can find article after article telling you why Christians are dangerous and evil and Christianity is wrong, wrong, wrong? You can find people arguing about how Scripture is wrong and the church is wrong and Christians are wrong. You can find self-identified Christians telling us the Bible is wrong or, at best, flawed, and that biblical morality is not a good source for a moral code for a society. You can find arguments and reasons to censure, silence, and even arrest on the basis of "hate" those who approve of a biblical worldview. And on and on. What I don't ever see is people online picking apart the Quran, examining what's wrong with Islam, or explaining the fundamental issues with Muslims. Now, of course, the most common reason given for that is ... Salman Rushdie. Cross Islam and someone might be out to get you. I might buy that, but beyond Islam, there isn't much in the way of analysis of Buddhism, Hinduism, or any other theological structures held in our world. No one asks if Taoism makes sense or if there is evidence for Shintoism. We don't see articles dedicated to examining Voodoo or Sikhism as a valid belief. None of those other 19 major world religions (per Wikipedia's list) have websites calling on people to avoid or even attack them. Just Christianity. Why is that?
Maybe it's because Christianity is "dominant." We know, of course, that Jesus said "few there are that find it" (Matt 7:14), but at least in name, Christianity has the biggest following in the world, so maybe that's one reason. Maybe because its adherents are often so vocal (because we are, after all, commanded to talk to people about Christ). Maybe it is partly, at least, because we're a "safe target." I mean, if Christ taught "turn the other cheek" (Matt 5:39) and Christians are followers of Christ, skeptics would feel pretty safe "slapping Christians," so to speak, right? Or maybe, just maybe, it has to do with the promise our Lord left (Matt 10:22). Maybe it's because we are warned that friendship with the world makes us enemies of God (James 4:4). Maybe it's because men love the darkness (John 3:19). Maybe it's because the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing (1 Cor 1:18). Maybe because the mind set on the flesh is hostile to God (Rom 8:7) and genuine followers of Christ represent Him. Maybe there's good reason that other religions get a pass from a hostile world, but not Christ-followers -- the rejection of truth (2 Tim 4:3-4).
10 comments:
The story of Richard Dawkins is such a sad one. Such an objectively brilliant man can some how hold to "Christianity is wrong and should disappear" and to "I like Christian culture and it would be bad if we lost it" at the same time. It is a clear representation of how sin rots the brain.
I concur that the world--where Satan currently has great power and influence--will generally hate Christianity and its followers. World and church history shows that this basic animosity has manifest itself in varying degrees and manners over the past 2,000 years. For example, the very early loathing of Christianity softened when Constantine legalized Christianity in 313 A.D. After that, popularity and influence of the faith varied quite a bit, of course--waxing and waning over the centuries as Islam spread, the Holy Roman Empire rose and fell, the New World was settled, the USA was populated by European immigrants, various movements occurred within Christianity and society, etc.
Currently, our culture purports to prize individualism, inclusiveness, and open-mindedness over exclusivity, dogmatism, and conformity--so Christianity is not favored idealistically. It seems to be recognized as a positive influence in our society in general (as people like Dawkins will even admit)--but one that must be carefully “restrained” so as not to take over our culture (a bad thing, according to its opponents). I know that conditions in the USA will change in coming days, but right now it seems that “hatred” toward Christians in our country has not been fully unleashed yet--thank God.
I follow all your observations here and concur. To be fair-minded, however, I would speculate that as a Christian, I am hyper-sensitive to criticisms of Christianity--i.e. I notice them and take them “personally.” Since I have an interest in “comparative religion,” I have read a bit about the other world religions you mentioned, including their origins, tenets, influences, negative aspects, etc.; in doing that, I have encountered books, articles, documentaries, websites, etc., that analyze various belief systems and deem them “invalid,” “pagan,” or worse. Therefore, I personally hesitate to conclude that Christianity gets “picked on” in an exclusive way, since to some degree, all religion--especially theistic ones--is derided. Because I live in the USA, where Christianity is “dominant,” as you say--and Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism, Shintoism, Wiccan, Voodoo, etc., are not--I acknowledge that I am able to move in my own comfortable “pro-Christian” world to a large degree; this dilutes that animosity towards Christianity sufficiently so I don’t personally feel “bullied” for my faith. However, as you say, that hatred is a very real thing.
I said that Christianity is singled out because Dawkins said that Christianity is singled out and others (like Islam) get a pass. Would you say that people in, say, largely Islamic or Buddhist places are publishing articles about what's wrong with those religions?
I know that Christians analyze and critique other religions, primarily in their efforts to defend the faith, but I don't often see secular skeptics heaping the same complaints on them as they do on Christianity.
Also, in popular culture, if someone says they're a Wiccan or Hindu or even Muslim, they are celebrated. In movies and television, the Christian is always the hypocritical, holier-than-thou, science denier, but other religious characters are treated with respect. You won't find volumes of books critically examining the Quran, trying to show how it fails to meet historical evidence. In fact, the secular West has bent over backwards to help clarify it. I remember even being taught in a Christian school about the history of Muhammad as if it were true, undisputed fact. But very often we are told all of the Bible is myth.
I don’t see in The Telegraph article where Dawkins said that; rather, the author calls Christianity “an easy target.” However, in the recorded interview with Rachel Johnson, Dawkins clearly criticizes Islam, saying that “unlike Christianity, Islam is not a fundamentally decent religion” and is hostile to women and gays (even more so than Christianity, apparently). So at least he is equally dismissive. In the USA, I think that all religions are fair game for scrutiny and critique (I see that as a byproduct of the freedoms of religion and of speech we enjoy here). I have seen lots of criticism about Islam and Muhammad in the past (and not just from Christian POVs). And some of the “comparative religions” information I have perused over the years was presented from an objective, secular perspective and often highlighted negative aspects. Buddhism has no critics, Stan--it’s such a peaceful, inoffensive religion :).
Dawkins, like most atheists, is happy to avail himself of the benefits of living in a culture influenced by the very religion he loves to criticize. Now he "bemoans the decline" because more people think like him.
While I hope that Dawkins' recent announcement is a step toward salvation, it is interesting to see those who are vehemently anti-Christian so shamelessly borrow all sorts of things from a Christian worldview so that they don't have to face the consequences of their own worldview.
Stan’s link to The Telegraph article about Richard Dawkins engaged my interest enough to watch the 8-minute video on which the article was based. I don’t know if the video was edited or if Dawkins really is as ignorant as his comments made him appear to be during that interview. The aspects of a “Christian culture” in the UK he apparently cherishes the most were hymns, Christmas carols, and cathedrals. Seriously? He didn’t acknowledge the improved society that the Western world enjoys due to the influence of Christianity over the past 2,000 years--including the advancement of education, scientific discovery, literacy, social services such as hospitals and orphanages, basic human rights and freedoms, etc. I would hope that people like Dawkins would at least be intellectually honest even if they continue in their defiance of the truth. Fortunately, I would say that the USA currently has an even stronger Christian culture than the UK; this enables us to proclaim Christ and share the Gospel, so that those whom God is calling will hear--that’s the greatest aspect of a Christian culture (which, sadly, Dawkins has so far missed).
In response to David’s observation: Perhaps because I am much older than you (and have seen many trends come and go), I don’t give too much weight to “popular culture” for this type of analysis. By its definition, “popular culture” reflects what is currently trending, is very changeable by nature, and is also highly subject to influence by those with one agenda or another. (For example, the producers, directors, writers, etc., who create a movie or TV show can portray whatever they want and not necessarily what reflects a true situation or a balanced view. The viewer must use his/her own judgment regarding the validity of the content, which requires one to be informed by resources outside of “popular culture,” of course.) Even though Stan highlighted Dawkins’ references to a “Christian culture,” I personally took the observations by both Stan and Dawkins as going beyond “popular culture” and looking moreso at the “bigger picture.”
P.S. I had difficulty ascertaining if your comment was directed to me or was a general response to the post, so I apologize if I have responded unnecessarily.
Post a Comment