Spiritual Conversations in a Skeptical Context

That is a far more interesting question because there can't be any doubt that the unique things the bible has given western culture are it's long tradition of charity for the poor, humility, the notion of human rights and we could go on hospitals and so on. These things especially charity for the poor, humility, love of enemy these things. You didn't find in Greece and Rome or Babylon or Egypt. They are unique contributions of the Bible." So I'm trying to distinguish between how the Bible is being used and what it has actually inspired. I sometimes – I didn't have time at the Fox – I was going to say the Foxy Lady – [Laughs] I can't even remember her name now. Anyway, I often say if you heard my nine-year-old attempt the cello suites by Johan Sebastian Bach, you might think Johan didn't really know how to write a tune. Right because you hear it go, "Er, er, er, er." But if you Yo Yo Ma played the cello suites you're in heaven. We know to distinguish between the beautiful performance and the sometimes very ordinary – beautiful composition rather and the sometimes very ordinary performance. And so it's important to do that when it comes to Christian history as well.

Could Christianity be a crutch? Sure it could. Could atheism just be an attempt to get out of having anyone looking over your shoulder? Of course it could. That doesn't resolve anything because some thirsts correspond to real thirst quenchers. If I hold a glass of water and I say I'm thirsty and you say, "You only believe in water because you're thirsty." How good is that? You only believe in water because you're thirsty. Um, but there's also water. So I would put it back to people that it cuts both ways, the atheist and the Christian both have to live with the proposition, the possibility that we've just invented convictions to satisfy urges so you need to therefore because the atheist can't win on this one you need to shift the ground to say, "Well what are the reasons for thinking one thing is true over another?"

And I often talk about this and I say look, "When you hear a Christian tell how they became a Christina you'll often hear them being really honest how it was a little bit of logos, a little bit of pathos, a little bit of ethos. Logos they heard some good arguments that were satisfying intellectually. Pathos, they heard the message of forgiveness and they longed for it, it was like psychologically very attractive. And ethos, they hung out with Christians and they saw what a compelling community of goodness they were and they thought, "Man I want that."" You often hear a Christian talk like that. They don't describe it as logos, pathos, ethos. And I put it back to my atheist friend, "Are you honest enough to admit that your unbelief is the result of a similar three fold set of factors. That sure you've got some intellectual things but it seems to me that there are some emotional or aesthetics going on and also some socialization." And we are not being honest with ourselves if we say, "I'm only an atheist because of the intellectual arguments." If there were evidence I'd believe. That's just not the real world of how belief forms.

And I think that sometimes in the midst of, particularly when you operate it out of an academic environment with an academic background you push the logos to your term, the logos or the argument side of it, the rational argument of it so hard that you forget that part of what you're trying to do is your actually asking someone to change significantly where they are. And often times that doesn't happen in a moment. Now obviously if Paul meets Jesus on the Damascus road that happens immediately but that's sometimes the exception versus the rule. Usually and if you listen to most testimonies this is true, it's part of a long process in which God – and I'll use a biblical word – drew the person to himself. It came in steps. And so I think changing how we think about, even though being engaged in those conversations is an important part of thinking through what you're doing when you engage a skeptic or an atheist.

And once more we have a picture in Jesus Christ of God coming so close and sharing in our pain, God himself having wounds. It was Edward Shillito the poet after the Second World War who said, "To our wounds only God's wounds could speak and not a God has wounds but thou alone to Jesus." And for me this is not a whole answer but in a brief time and I think I did say something like this at Fox – when my daughter grazes her knee and runs to me she doesn't say, "Dad what's the origin of this evil?" She just wants to know that I've got her and that I sympathize and I would say regardless of the philosophical answers to these questions, what Christianity offers that no other tradition can offer is a picture of God that would willing give himself on a cross for us. And even if we can't always trace his hand, we can trust his heart with the cross wears that heart on the sleeve right.

Now the interesting thing is the Muslims say, "How dare you. That guy so outdid Dickson because he showed be how foolish my view of God is." And all the secularist Sydney students are going, "What a beautiful picture of God that he would do that for us.

I hope that you recognize that because I felt it as I wrote it. I don't feel any angst or animosity towards my colleagues who are very strict complementarians I see myself as a soft complementarian I think I say in the book or a generous complementarian. I don't know but still a complementarian but I tried to take the heat out of it by being far more gentle and limited in what I say. In terms of strategy, look I don't know because I feel a little bit put on the spot not knowing official policies and all that sort of thing.

We get upset about where the bottom line is in terms of what someone's conclusion is without thinking through, how do we discuss this and what is a disagreement, as Christians, Christianly. I wish I saw more of that in this conversation. And unfortunately many times we don't. So John, let me say that you handled this I think in the book very, very well. There would be things that we might discuss in private but that's fine, that's part of the point of the exercise and I think that the way in which it was done is exemplary as anything and it is a lesson the church, particularly the conservative church desperately needs as it engages in these conversations where we know that we have brothers and sisters with Christ who are as deeply committed to Jesus Christ as we are but who think differently on this matter. So thank you. Over here.

And to make that clear from the very beginning. And the Bible itself is actually a pretty messy book. As you said there are rat bags in it. There are all kind of other creatures and critters too. And a lot of the sections of the Bible that we want to engage with do things that if they're weren't written in the Bible we might restrict people from being exposed to. There's something wrong about that. And so my preference would be to work on creating the right kind of engagement environment. That's when you say you're generous with regard to engagement that's what I think I'm describing, which says, "Bring to me your questions, bring to me what your exposing. Let's think about what this is and does and how it works or how it doesn't work. All those kinds of things to create a discerning person as they grow up so that when they do grow up they can discern.