NZ Christian Network is advising everyone who is concerned about the proposed Abortion Legislation Bill to make sure that they send a submission to the Abortion Legislation Committee. This matter is now very time-sensitive: Submissions close at midnight Thursday 19 September 2019.
Dr Stuart Lange wrote the following submission to the Abortion Legislation Committee in opposition to the “Abortion Legislation Bill” on behalf of New Zealand Christian Network.
The New Zealand Christian Network was established in 2002 to help churches in New Zealand to work together and to represent a reasoned Christian voice on public issues. We are a widely inter-denominational movement. We reflect a moderate orthodox/biblical Christian faith and seek to express the perspectives of at least half a million of New Zealand’s Christian people and their churches.
NZCN is OPPOSED to the “Abortion Legislation Bill”
1. We first acknowledge this is a painful issue
For many people, abortion is a very painful and divisive issue. Convictions and feelings run deep. Many find abortion tragic. Others, finding themselves unexpectedly pregnant, have been thrown into a life crisis. In anguish and fear, they have agonised over whether or not to seek an abortion, and have had to live with that decision ever since. Some grieve for family members who were never born. Many people alive today are aware that they could have been aborted, but are pleased they were not. We acknowledge that all those who proceed with unwelcome pregnancies need strong support from others, and those who have undergone an abortion need compassionate understanding.
2. Society needs good and balanced legislation
The health of pregnant women and the protection of the unborn are both matters where society needs excellent and balanced legislation. We are far from convinced that the Abortion Legislation Bill now before Parliament is adequate in either respect. If retained, this Bill would need very serious amendment.
3. The core problem with the Abortion Legislation Bill
The core problem with the Abortion Legislation Bill is that it has no regard for the rights or protection of unborn children, and treats abortion as solely a women’s health issue. This is a radical and unwarranted change, and one we profoundly oppose. The bill allows no rights whatsoever to unborn children, and effectively removes all protection for them. The human life growing within a pregnant woman is ignored, and treated as of no significance.
If passed, the Bill will cement into New Zealand law the principle that unborn children have no legal or human rights. This will likely pave the way in the future for an unrestricted right to abortion in New Zealand, at any stage of gestational development, and for any reason.
The Bill abandons the approach of the existing legislation, which seeks to balance the rights and needs of a pregnant woman with the rights of an unborn child. Current legislation does not give unborn children the full status and human rights of a human being, but recognises the duty of the State to give a measure of protection to unborn human lives. It provides for lawful abortions only in circumstances such as a serious risk to the life, and/or the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman. This Bill would sweep all that away.
4. The humane State and its respect for the sanctity of life
A respect for the sanctity of human life has long been a key principle governing the laws in enlightened and democratic modern states. The State’s general respect for the intrinsic value of every human life, and including the status and rights of unborn children, has in large measure reflected biblical understandings that all people are made in the image of God, are to be treasured, that we must love others as much as we love ourselves, and that compassion and the protection of the vulnerable are non-negotiable values. In the Bible, unborn humans are seen as being exquisitely formed by God within their mother’s womb (Psalm 139:15-16). Pagan pre-Christian societies had little regard for the value of human life, and widely practised abortion, infanticide, and many other forms of cruelty, but the Christianising of society generally led to a more humane outlook. Christians rejected abortion and infanticide, and society eventually followed.
5. Respect for the sanctity of life matters to us all
Respect for the sanctity of human life is not just some religious scruple or philosophical ideal which may lightly be discarded. It is a powerful public good, and a key element of a compassionate, and safe society. It makes everyone safer. The incremental erosion of respect for the sanctity of human life makes everyone less safe. The abandoning of any protection for unborn human lives is a dangerous step for society. In the twentieth century, various oppressive States deemed successive groups as less than human, stripped them of rights, and many millions subsequently died.
6. Respect for the sanctity of life needs to be widely debated
This Bill is not a “reform” or “updating”, as claimed, but represents a major shift in public policy with massive ethical implications. The bill is drawn up in such a way as to exclude the obvious ethical issue that abortion involves the taking of unborn life, and that society has a legitimate interest in the protection of unborn human lives.
The arbitrary legal extinguishing of all human rights for unborn children (contrary to previous law) is a matter of major ethical and societal importance. It should be studied and debated fully. The 1977 provision in New Zealand law for abortions in some circumstances followed two years of deliberations by a Royal Commission of Enquiry, with extensive study, discussion and public consultation. No comparable process has preceded the Abortion Legislation Bill.
7. The claimed justification for the bill is spurious
Supporters of the Bill allege that women need to have abortion “decriminalised”. But there is no basis for that. There has been provision for lawful abortion in New Zealand since 1977. Under the current legislation, no woman has ever been criminalised by having an abortion, lawful or otherwise.
The current inclusion of parts of the existing legislation under the Crimes Act reflects the inescapable reality that abortion involves ending the life of an unborn child, which remains a very serious thing.
We have no objection to abortion legislation being domiciled outside the framework of the Crimes Act. That is not the key issue. What really matters is that society and the state should give appropriate protection to the unborn child, along with allowing abortion where it is genuinely necessary for the health of the mother.
The call for decriminalisation appears to be primarily a means to securing abortion on demand, with absolutely no regard for any rights of the unborn child.
8. The argument that a pregnant woman’s autonomy over “her own body”
It is asserted that a woman should have autonomy over her “own” body, and that therefore abortion should be an absolute right. But such an argument overlooks the inescapable reality that pregnancy is about “having a baby”, and that abortion is about ending the life of that unborn baby.
It is argued an unborn child is part of a woman’s body. That is an unsustainable claim, and clearly contrary to biological science. Certainly an unborn child is intimately connected to the mother, and utterly dependent on her body, and nourished by her body. But the baby is never part of her body.
From the outset, a human embryo is a distinct human organism, with its own genetic code, and its own body and developing brain and organs. It is not yet a developed foetus, or a viable “human being”. But it is programmed to be born, and to live a human life beyond the womb, potentially for another hundred years. It is clearly not part of the woman’s body.
9. The claim that abortion is “just a health procedure”
Abortion may well be seen as a health procedure for a woman who does not wish to continue her pregnancy. But it is the very opposite of a “health procedure” for the unborn child.
10. The Royal Commission of Inquiry had it about right
We endorse the part of the 1977 report of the Royal Commission on Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion which declared it ethically wrong, except for good reason, to terminate unborn life. It asserted that, regardless of whether an unborn child can be seen as full human being, abortion “extinguishes the potentiality of life” and is thus “a most serious step”. Abortion on demand “would be to deny to the unborn child any status whatsoever”, and that it would be immoral to allow abortion “for reasons of convenience”. Protection of the unborn, it said, should only give way in the face of serious danger to the mother’s life or health.
11. The existing abortion legislation strikes a reasonable balance
The existing abortion legislation reflects the continuing desire of many in society (then and now) to extend some protection to unborn children, along with the needs of women who desire an abortion. The present law states that abortion is only lawful where there is a “serious danger to the woman’s life, physical or mental health”. We believe that is a reasonable balance (but are not happy with how the existing law has been so liberally interpreted).
12. We oppose abortion on demand, as proposed in the bill
What is proposed in the Bill is abortion on demand, especially in the first twenty weeks of gestation. But a great many people in New Zealand society do not agree with abortion on demand, and continue to believe abortion is ethically justifiable only in certain circumstances.
We understand the moral distinction often made between embryos in the first twenty weeks and those unborn who have reached the stage where they could be viable if born. But an embryo of any age is still a human life in the making, and in our view still deserves protection. It ultimately makes no difference to the outcome of abortion whether an unborn child is aborted early or late in pregnancy. The end result is still death. Those destroyed in the womb will never live the life they are programmed to live: they will never know love, feel the breeze on their face, see a sunset, express their individuality, work, form relationships, have children, or experience sorrow and joy. Do we truly have the right to deny them their life?
13. No legal protection for unborn babies after twenty weeks’ gestation
What the Bill proposes for pregnancies of over twenty weeks of gestation leaves late-term unborn children with no legal protection, and vulnerable to abortion on demand.
The proposed statutory test is a very weak and vague criterion that a “health practitioner” (not even necessarily a doctor) must “reasonably believe” the abortion is “appropriate” with regard to the woman’s physical and mental health. There is no provision in the Bill for the health professional to have any regard for the rights of the unborn child. Indeed, any regard for protecting the unborn baby may be seen as beyond the scope of the new law.
We much prefer the way the existing law is worded, that after 20 weeks’ gestation lawful abortions are only allowed “when it is necessary to save the woman’s life, or prevent serious permanent injury to her physical or mental health”.
The change of law regarding abortions after 20 weeks of gestation will very likely increase the number of late-term abortions.
The proposed legislation will inevitably lead to the abortion of many more babies with disabilities, and to abortions on the grounds of sex-selection. There is nothing in the proposed legislation to prevent either of those outcomes.
Any abortion involves the death of the unborn, but – except in circumstances where it is truly necessary – the abortion of babies who would be capable of living if born alive is especially repugnant. Morally, it is very similar to infanticide.
14. The passing of the Bill would increase overall abortion rates
Legislation helps shape public attitudes. The availability of abortion on demand, in effect both before and after twenty weeks’ gestation, and the deliberate jettisoning of any legal protection for unborn human life, will almost certainly lead to an increase in the number of abortions in New Zealand. That is tragic, not least because the number of abortions has been declining.
We accept that abortion is sometimes ethically justified. We agree that abortion should be “safe, legal and rare”. This Bill look set to achieve the very opposite of “rare”.
15. A major blind spot
The promotion of abortion on demand, without any regard for the life of the unborn child, is deeply inconsistent with all the commendable rhetoric in our society about the wellbeing of children, care for the vulnerable, and compassion. Unborn babies are not sub-human nothings. Biologically, they are us.
16. The language of the bill is de-humanising
We believe the change of language used by the bill is insidious in the way it de-humanises unborn children. The Crimes Act rightly refers to foetuses as an “unborn child”. But the proposed Bill only uses the term “foetus”. By and large the Bill ignores the existence of the unborn, or that any abortion “health procedure” always involves a death. The Bill also refers to the lethal drug(s) used in injections to kill foetuses as “medicine”.
17. If the Bill is retained, it should have many amendments, e.g.
The reinstatement of protection for the life of the unborn, at least after 20 weeks, making abortion after that point unlawful except for genuinely serious risk to the life of the mother and/or her physical or mental health, with explicit mention of the need to protect unborn life, and processes to ensure that provision for abortion in exceptional circumstances is not being abused by being too liberally interpreted.
Mandatory counselling prior to any decision about abortion to ensure informed choice and consent, with objective and non-coercive information about the current stage of development of the unborn child, what abortion involves for both mother and child, the risks, alternatives to abortion, and the availability of support.
A requirement for a short period of reflection before a decision is finalised
Safeguards against coercion (e.g. from partner, family, school, health practitioner etc.)
An amendment to prevent abortions on the basis of gender
Safeguards against abortion on the grounds of minor disability
Changing “health practitioner” to “medical practitioner”
Strengthening freedom of conscience provision, especially in relation to employment rights of health practitioners
Removing provision for “safe areas”, which compromises freedoms of belief, assembly, and expression
Biologically, an individual human life begins at conception, with the formation of a new human organism with his or her own unique genetic code, and programmed to develop, be born, and live life.
Although completely dependent on the mother, the unborn child is never part of a woman’s own body.
New Zealand law only recognises a baby as legally a “human being” when “born live”.
Morally and legally, many societies (including New Zealand) have seen unborn children as deserving of at least some legal protection.
Many people and societies have felt that unborn children who capable of being viable if born are deserving of the highest degree of legal protection.
If a society decides however that an unborn baby has no human rights until “born live”, unborn children are left without any foundational legal status and protection and are vulnerable to legislation permitting abortion at any stage of gestation.
There is no mention of abortion in the Bible, but there are many biblical passages and principles that we should take into account.
The Bible…
points to the great value of human beings, created by God
(Ps.100:3 – “it is He who has made us, and not we ourselves”; Isa.64:8 – “We are the clay, you are the potter; we are all the work of your hand”), made in God’s image (Gen.1:27a), breathed life by God (Gen. 2:7), crowned by God with honour and glory (Ps. 8:5), and greatly loved by God (e.g. John 3:16)
is very positive about human procreation
(Gen. 1:28; Ps. 127:3)
speaks reverentially of God beautifully forming us in the womb, and seeing and knowing us before birth
13 For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. 14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. 15 My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place, when I was woven together in the depths of the earth. 16 Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.[
tells of God calling people before they were born
(Jer. 1:5; Gal.1:15)
does not address the issue whether life begins at conception or at birth, but does recognise the obvious continuity between the life that is conceived and the baby that is born
speaks warmly of unborn lives in the womb, in relation to both Jesus and John
(Luke 1:39-45)
in the Mosaic law, in one instance places a greater value upon the life of a mother than that of her unborn child (Ex. 21:22-25)
22“Now suppose two men are fighting, and in the process they accidentally strike a pregnant woman so she gives birth prematurely. If no further injury results, the man who struck the woman must pay the amount of compensation the woman’s husband demands and the judges approve.23But if there is further injury, the punishment must match the injury: a life for a life,24an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot,25a burn for a burn, a wound for a wound, a bruise for a bruise.
recounts Jesus’ welcome to childrenand his warning against causing them harm
(Matt. 18:5-6)
speaks often of God’s love for the weak and defenceless
(e.g. Ps. 32:13, 82:3-4)
shows God’s love for the disabled
(e.g. Ex. 4:11, Matt. 15:31, Lk. 14:13)
declares God’s love for the broken-hearted
(Ps. 34:18)
declares God’s grace and forgiveness for those who have done wrong
A number of media have recently carried a story about a survey seeking to measure which religions in New Zealand are the most-trusted, and which are the least trusted, in the aftermath of the 15 March terrorist attacks in Christchurch. The survey, conducted by the Institute for Governance and Policy Studies at Victoria University of Wellington, was based on a sample of one thousand people. Respondents were asked to indicate their trust in the following “religions”: Catholics, Protestants, Evangelical Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists or agnostics, and Jews.
The summary that was headlined was “BUDDHISTS MOST TRUSTED, EVANGELICALS LEAST”. Respondents to the survey awarded Buddhists the most trust (35%) and the least distrust (15%). “Evangelical Christians” attracted the least trust (21%) and the most distrust (38%). All other “religions” were in a statistically indistinguishable clump in the middle.
source: business.scoop.co.nz
The summary that was headlined was “BUDDHISTS MOST TRUSTED, EVANGELICALS LEAST”. Respondents to the survey awarded Buddhists the most trust (35%) and the least distrust (15%). “Evangelical Christians” attracted the least trust (21%) and the most distrust (38%). All other “religions” were in a statistically indistinguishable clump in the middle.
Kiwis’ trust in members of different faiths. Photo credit: Institute for Governance and Policy Studies/Colmar Brunton
It is not surprising that Buddhists, with their reputation for peacefulness and for harmony with nature, were the most trusted religion in a society where many secular people (now over 40% of New Zealanders) are at least faintly drawn to the sort of diffused spirituality perceived to be associated with eastern religion. Also, Buddhists do not have a reputation for being out to convert anyone.
Given the way the survey was framed, it was perhaps inevitable that respondents would indicate the lowest degree of trust in “evangelicals”.
A number of comments can be made about the survey…
1
Most people in New Zealand – especially secular people, but also probably the majority of church-going Christians –have little or no idea what the term “evangelical” means (i.e. that it is a theological category, denoting a strong emphasis on the Gospel and the Bible).
2
The majority of people who are evangelical in New Zealand (and in most other countries), do not usually explicitly identify themselves as “evangelical”, but more often primarily identify themselves as “Christian” or by the name of their church or denomination, or by some other theological descriptor such as “Pentecostal”. Many New Zealand “Evangelicals” are in so-called mainstream churches, and many others in denominations such as the Baptists, or in independent churches. It is erroneous to assume that because only a mere 15,000 people explicitly identified themselves in the 2013 Census as “Evangelical”, they are the only people in New Zealand who are evangelical.
3
It was odd and confusing that the survey singled out “Evangelical” as one of the options, and “Protestant” as another. “Evangelical” and “Protestant” are not in fact separate or competing “religions”. The reality is, the majority of “Evangelical” Christians are also “Protestant”, and about half of New Zealand’s church-going Protestants are also evangelical in theology and practice. One term is essentially a subset of the other. So comparing one with the other is rather like comparing apples with fruit.
4
For many respondents, the word “evangelical” was probably misunderstood to mean “evangelistic”. For many people the word conjures up feelings about in-your-face, bible-bashing proselytism, something which many secular people find annoying (and which many Christian people are also uncomfortable with).
5
It is also highly likely that quite a number of respondents were also influenced by the American media’s highlighting of “evangelical” support for the Republican Party and especially for Donald Trump. The word “Evangelical” thus invokes some negative stereotypes, and for the survey to single out “evangelicals” at this time was almost to invite such a response. In our greatly different New Zealand context, however, it is fallacious to suppose that all New Zealand “Evangelicals” must be Trump-supporting, Muslim-hating bigots and xenophobes. Notwithstanding the current linkage in the United States between some evangelicals and political views, in almost every other country in the world the word “evangelical” carries no political meaning at all.
For all these reasons, it is questionable whether the survey offers us any useful new insights. Indirectly, however, the outcomes of the survey are consistent with what many of us already knew: that the term “evangelical” is currently not well known or understood within wider New Zealand society, nor even within many New Zealand churches.
But, as indicated in another article posted today (see here), the true taonga in the word “evangelical” lies not in the word itself but in what it points to, the Good News of Jesus.
To be evangelical means to believe and live for Christ in the spirit of the New Testament Gospel, celebrating God’s great love and grace, through faith in Christ as Lord and Saviour.
Evangelical Christianity is about spiritual conversion, and Christian consecration and discipleship.
It is about believing that salvation is found in Christ alone, and that believers should share the good news of Christ both in word and in action.
It places much emphasis on the saving work of Christ on the Cross, and the critical importance of Christ’s resurrection.
Being evangelical is about devotion to Christ, and prayerfulness.
It involves a high level of commitment to Christian fellowship and the church.
To be evangelical means to recognise the divine inspiration and authority of the Bible, and to make much use of it in preaching, teaching, study and devotion.
Evangelical Christianity is about holding to historic biblical Christianity, and to safeguard that many evangelical churches and organisations have a statement of faith.
Evangelical Christianity varies greatly in its practices and tone.
At its best, evangelical Christianity transcends denominational distinctives, and cultural divides, and many differences over secondary matters. Evangelical Christianity shares many of its characteristics with various other Christian streams, especially with regard to the basics of Christian faith and life, but nevertheless it has its own distinctive flavour. At its core, evangelical Christianity has a spiritual Gospel dynamic which transforms individual lives, and then flows over into relationships, family, churches, and society.
At its core, evangelical Christianity has a spiritual Gospel dynamic which transforms individual lives, and then flows over into relationships, family, churches, and society.
The word “evangelical” points us to the heart of the New Testament message. The word is derived from the New Testament Greek word for “Gospel” (euangelion), which means “good news”: the good news that the living God has sent his Son into the world, to reveal God, to die for our sins, and to rise from the dead, and that when people place their faith in Christ they receive forgiveness, newness of life, the presence of the Holy Spirit, and confidence for eternity.
The word “evangelical” was used during the Reformation, to indicate an emphasis on the Gospel of grace and on the authority and use of the Bible. It was very much associated with the eighteenth century revivals in Britain and America, and the nineteenth century humanitarian improvements in British society, and the nineteenth and twentieth century global expansion of Protestant Christianity – and not least the background to New Zealand’s Treaty of the Waitangi.
Within the church, the word “evangelical” serves primarily an in-house theological term. Outside the church, the word “evangelical” is less useful, because it is so often misunderstood. It is often best to express its meaning using other words.
The New Zealand Christian Network is associated with the World Evangelical Alliance, which seeks to express the faith of about some 600 million evangelical Christians worldwide, across a vast diversity of different nations, cultures and denominations. In some 130 countries, there is a national evangelical alliance affiliated to the WEA. From time to time, the WEA calls a General Assembly. The last one was in 2008. The next one is in November 2019, and it will be attended by several representatives from New Zealand.
“Who are these atheists, anyway?” is the fourth and final part in the Atheism is not all it’s cracked up to be series by Gavan O’ Farrell, who works as a public sector lawyer.
This final Part on the series on atheism is less concerned with argument and more focused on who we’re talking about (and to).
“Non-theists” vary
I’ve decided now to refer to “non-theists”, as non-belief in God ranges from frank atheism (“There is no God”) to agnosticism (“I don’t know”) with each position having its own spectrum and labels not being applied consistently. Non-theists sometimes describe themselves as “rationalists”, “realists”, “sceptics”, “humanists” or “secularists”. However, they all reside in the “empiricist box” (see Part 1).
Needless to say, non-theists vary because they are human beings with myriad characteristics and experiences. I can mention some.
The most serious non-theists are those atheists who are intellectually attached to the evidence argument: if there were a God, it would have been proved by now. Their demeanour varies: some triumphalist and rude, some civil.
Ordinarily, atheists are a smallish subset of non-theists but, in this era of maximum self-expression, the number is probably artificially inflated.
The most visible non-theists are those who have a strong dislike of religion, especially Christianity.
This dislike may arise from their understanding of the general and historical conduct of the Church – sometimes a genuine misunderstanding that can be treated with information.
Illumination is not effective when the misunderstanding is deliberate – due to prejudice or even organised enmity. Socialists, for example, oppose Christianity as a matter of ideology, will contradict and abuse it at every opportunity and intend to bring it down. This stance can be found in many places, people and discussions: it doesn’t always call itself Socialism but, on the other hand, the Socialism brand is being laundered and relaunched despite its appallingly murderous history.
Or the dislike may be the result of bad experiences within the Church – a story which needs to be seriously listened to before mentioning “babies and bathwater”. Many are angry: mere indignation for some, while for others it is real hurt.
This anger is sometimes directed at God, not at religion. If a believer is angry with God, and doesn’t address the situation properly, the anger can take them far away – eg I might “punish God” by proclaiming that I don’t believe in Him.
Determined personal sovereignty and autonomy is another path to non-theism: “I don’t need a God to feel significant or secure”. Or, “I’m very clever and educated, I’ll take it from here”. Or simply, “No-one’s the boss of me!” More attitude than rationale.
Others were raised as non-theists and, like some Christians, think habitually and speak by rote.
Some non-theists call themselves “sceptics”, but I have found that they are typically half-sceptics – sceptical about God and the supernatural but not about their own claims about rationality and evidence (or the social and moral positions put forward by the Left).
Most non-theists are agnostics. This position is more understandable than a dogmatic “Ain’t no God”.
On the other hand, “I don’t know” is often a cover for “I don’t care”. It seems strange not to care that there might be Someone who made the cosmos and is in touch with humanity, but we continue to hear “I’ll cross that bridge when I get to it”.
For some, “I’ll cross that bridge” is another pretext for avoiding a difficult issue. We should recognise that delaying consideration (and the “risk” of believing) is understandable, just like not wanting God to exist.
Some people prefer agnosticism because they believe it can accommodate spirituality. (Oddly, even some atheists are into this.) Of course, this “spirituality” falls short of belief in a God who is a Person – especially, a Person with, shall we say, “strong opinions” (who needs that?!). I think they’re trying to have their cake and eat it:
A yearning for “the spiritual” is extremely common and entirely natural (a hint at the real yearning for God).
However, with no connection with God or the supernatural, “spirituality” is just a species of strong emotion.
True atheism – “truth is about reason and evidence” – is hard to market. No-one wants to think of themselves as a left hemisphere on a stick, so no wonder non-theist advocates use hard-sell. Enhancing non-theism with “spirituality” is smart marketing, but that’s all it is.
At risk of stating the obvious, a conversation with a non-theist is not a conversation with the embodiment of some ideas but with a fabulously complex and unique human being who is in God’s image and likeness, is loved by God, is in humanity’s shared predicament and has an irrefutable claim on everyone’s love.
Atheism and politics
Visiting an atheist site, I once asked “Are there any conservative atheists or are you all Lefties?”. I was told, “If you’re smart enough to be an atheist, you’re probably smart enough to be progressive”.
Like much of academia, the media, the education system,much of government and parts of the Church, popular non-theism seems to have been infiltrated and largely taken over by “progressives” – to be politically allied with third-wave feminism, the LGBTIQ lobby and other “diversity” lobbies, and united with these in protecting Islam from criticism.
It is strange that such independent thinkers (a claim which non-theists often make to distinguish themselves from Christians) should all of a sudden be of one mind about such difficult and complex issues, especially when you consider that –
trans activists ignore and often oppose the “factuality” of science, which serious non-theists ordinarily value; and
in an Islamic theocracy, non-theists would fare as badly as feminists and LGBTIQ folk.
As far as I can tell, all these groups have in common is a, shall we say, “warm dislike” of Christianity. I don’t know how else to make sense of this outlandish alliance.
Some non-theists are seriously dedicated to reality and reason and have avoided being ensnared by these movements. It is possible to have positive ethical and political conversations with these more independent non-theists. There is likely to be mutual acceptance of the starting proposition that human beings are highly, and equally, valuable – if the non-theists don’t deride our “deluded” reasons for believing this and we don’t berate them for having no reason at all to believe it (see Part 2). From that starting-point, a lot of positive discussion and common action are possible.
Some very good books
Before closing, I must bring to your attention four excellent myth-busting books that together respond to most charges laid at the door of Christianity:
In these times of rising geopolitical chaos, the need for mutual understanding between cultures has never been more urgent. Religious differences are seen as fuel for violence and warfare. In these pages, one of our greatest writers on religion, Karen Armstrong, amasses a sweeping history of humankind to explore the perceived connection between war and the world’s great creeds—and to issue a passionate defense of the peaceful nature of faith.
With unprecedented scope, Armstrong looks at the whole history of each tradition—not only Christianity and Islam, but also Buddhism, Hinduism, Confucianism, Daoism, and Judaism. Religions, in their earliest days, endowed every aspect of life with meaning, and warfare became bound up with observances of the sacred. Modernity has ushered in an epoch of spectacular violence, although, as Armstrong shows, little of it can be ascribed directly to religion. Nevertheless, she shows us how and in what measure religions came to absorb modern belligerence—and what hope there might be for peace among believers of different faiths in our time.
A recent string of popular-level books written by the New Atheists have leveled the accusation that the God of the Old Testament is nothing but a bully, a murderer, and a cosmic child abuser. This viewpoint is even making inroads into the church. How are Christians to respond to such accusations? And how are we to reconcile the seemingly disconnected natures of God portrayed in the two testaments?
In this timely and readable book, apologist Paul Copan takes on some of the most vexing accusations of our time, including:
God is arrogant and jealous God punishes people too harshly God is guilty of ethnic cleansing God oppresses women God endorses slavery Christianity causes violence and more
Copan not only answers God’s critics, he also shows how to read both the Old and New Testaments faithfully, seeing an unchanging, righteous, and loving God in both.
The “marvelous” (Reza Aslan, bestselling author of Zealot), New York Times bestselling story of how Christianity became the dominant religion in the West.
How did a religion whose first believers were twenty or so illiterate day laborers in a remote part of the empire became the official religion of Rome, converting some thirty million people in just four centuries? In The Triumph of Christianity, early Christian historian Bart D. Ehrman weaves the rigorously-researched answer to this question “into a vivid, nuanced, and enormously readable narrative” (Elaine Pagels, National Book Award-winning author of The Gnostic Gospels), showing how a handful of charismatic characters used a brilliant social strategy and an irresistible message to win over hearts and minds one at a time.
This “humane, thoughtful and intelligent” book (The New York Times Book Review) upends the way we think about the single most important cultural transformation our world has ever seen—one that revolutionized art, music, literature, philosophy, ethics, economics, and law.
Among all the great transitions that have marked Western history, only one—the triumph of Christianity—can be called in the fullest sense a “revolution”
In this provocative book one of the most brilliant scholars of religion today dismantles distorted religious “histories” offered up by Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, and other contemporary critics of religion and advocates of atheism. David Bentley Hart provides a bold correction of the New Atheists’s misrepresentations of the Christian past, countering their polemics with a brilliant account of Christianity and its message of human charity as the most revolutionary movement in all of Western history.
Hart outlines how Christianity transformed the ancient world in ways we may have forgotten: bringing liberation from fatalism, conferring great dignity on human beings, subverting the cruelest aspects of pagan society, and elevating charity above all virtues. He then argues that what we term the “Age of Reason” was in fact the beginning of the eclipse of reason’s authority as a cultural value. Hart closes the book in the present, delineating the ominous consequences of the decline of Christendom in a culture that is built upon its moral and spiritual values.
I’ve decided now to refer to “non-theists”, as non-belief in God ranges from frank atheism (“There is no God”) to agnosticism (“I don’t know”) with each position having its own spectrum and labels not being applied consistently. Non-theists sometimes describe themselves as “rationalists”, “realists”, “sceptics”, “humanists” or “secularists”. However, they all reside in the “empiricist box” (
On the other hand, “I don’t know” is often a cover for “I don’t care”. It seems strange not to care that there might be Someone who made the cosmos and is in touch with humanity, but we continue to hear “I’ll cross that bridge when I get to it”.
At risk of stating the obvious, a conversation with a non-theist is not a conversation with the embodiment of some ideas but with a fabulously complex and unique human being who is in God’s image and likeness, is loved by God, is in humanity’s shared predicament and has an irrefutable claim on everyone’s love.
