The Mind of Brian

Dear Mr. Harris,

I just finished reading your Letter to a Christian Nation and I felt like I needed to respond with my own letter. This is a bit hastily written (in the formatting, etc.), so please forgive any sort of typos, etc. I hope you do not detect a tone of anger behind my writing, I am not angry. I am thankful that you wrote this book and would like to meet you a get to know the guy behind the words. I want to begin with a personal note, then note some areas of affirmation, and then offer some more critical thoughts. I know “criticism” on paper always sounds tougher and is not as productive as a conversation, but this form will have to do for now.

 First of all, I want to condemn, not condone, much of the critical correspondence you have received from “Christians” through the years. In a way, I wish I could sit down and have you read the letters and remarks to me, that I might experience the unjustified and needless insults and threats. There is no place for this sort of behavior in the marketplace of ideas if we ever want to discuss things in a civilized manner.

 Secondly, I want to echo agreement on your thoughts concerning the bankruptcy of “liberal” and “moderate” Christianity (p. 5, 47-48). As Machen wrote in Christianity and Liberalism, these ideas are not truly part of Christianity; it is a different faith system. The God of these liberal systems is so undefinable and contradictory that it seems illogical; there is a reason it is on the decline while atheism and “fundamentalism” (as you would call it) are on the increase. The claims that religions systems make are mutually exclusive and we need to recognize this. I am glad that you do see this key distinction.

 In addition, I wanted to thank you for noting what your goal is in the book and for noting your presuppositions and views throughout the book. Your goal was to “demolish the intellectual and moral pretensions in its most committed forms” (p. ix). That being said, I believe that this was an ambition goal. If it takes a 1,000 page bill to seek to fix the health care system, I doubt a less than 100 page book is going to “demolish” these ideas! If anything, you could only destroy a straw man. In my mind, you fail to fulfill your goal; you probably bit off more than you can chew. That being said, you have presented many some good points that every Christian should consider and examine.

 I also wonder about the exact nature of your target. Have you really attacked Christianity? In many ways, I did not feel that you addressed my faith. You attack those who believe that the earth is 6,000 years old, that there will be a great tribulation at the end as sketched in the Left Behind books, and who believe that this nation was built upon biblical principles to which we need to get the country to return. These ideas are not at the heart of my cross-centered faith. In some ways, it feels like you have attacked an American cultural construction, not the Christian faith. You have not gone through the apostles creed and deconstructed this faith. Furthermore, I think that you have attacked what I would (following Tim Keller) call the “elder brother” syndrome in the church’s, which the gospel confronts! Therefore, you might attack a “Christian nation” of fundamentalists, but not Christianity.

 Now, there are a number of issues in your argument that I would like to push back on in different sections of your book; I combine some subsections because I think the same criticism could be leveled at the arguments or because they go together. I know that you would not give every argument equal weight, so some are stronger than others; I might question some of your “weaker” points” but I find enough weaknesses and flaws to find your argument unconvincing. (Which of course brings up a whole issue about logic and persuasion: why is it that the same argument can sound persuasive and solid to one but completely unpersuasive to others. Is it because one is “irrational?” Take religious beliefs out of the picture. Why do literary critics disagree on a regular basis? Why do historians disagree? We see this all the time in academia. However, this is something that I cannot fully address now, nor do you really touch on in the book, other than to say that I would find it unconvincing because of my faith system). Morality, science, the character of God and the Bible, behavior of Christians.

 Moral Wisdom of the Bible

You question whether the Bible is really a “morally wise” book by looking at Old Testament laws and the fact that the NT affirms them; this means that we should stone adulterers and that we should not wear garments made of two different fabrics. You accuse Christians of cherry-picking the Bible, but you do the exact same thing. While you quote Matt 5:17 as showing the abiding nature of the OT law, you do not quote Rom 10:4 (“Christ is the end of the law”) or Ephesians 2:15. You do not examine Acts 15 and the Jerusalem council talking about the OT law with Gentile believers. Christians have debated the place of the OT in the life of the believer for years; lower volumes than your work here have addressed the issue. You vastly simplify the relationship between the OT and NT. Furthermore, you misconstrue the OT law. The OT law was culturally situated; it must be compared not to our laws today but to laws back then. For example, stoning a person seems to be more compassionate in some ways than ostracizing them from the community in a tribal culture. God seems to have chosen to work in gradual steps, rather than all at once; these laws reflect a different sort of culture than those around them. The slave laws are often cited as an example. Could He have given a more complete moral law at once? Absolutely! But he did not. Just as we often take steps to solve problems (for our benefit), it seems God has done the same thing.

 Real Morality

You claim that there is an objective basis for morality outside of divine revelation, but I am still a little confused on what this is. It seems that it is to promote happiness and to alleviate suffering; this leads to self-sacrifice. How do we define these things? Does self-sacrifice truly lead to happiness? I am not so sure in my experience. Even the ideas of happiness and suffering seem to be non-physical entities it would seem; there is an element of subjectivity in them. That is why we have philosophers. For one thing, this would be in line with the sort of standards I see in the gospel message—the gospel increases human flourishing and defeats the forces that lead to suffering. For example, when I have taught teenagers about the Biblical teaching on sex and marriage, I believe that the biblical teaching is designed to promote happiness and to alleviate suffering. In addition, how do we deal with psychological/emotional/spiritual/mental (whatever you want to label it) suffering? What cures those? And why is there suffering? If this is just the way that life is, shouldn’t we accept it? Isn’t it interesting that science, education, and knowledge cannot eliminate suffering? Even the knowledge that a hurricane will come to New Orleans did not stop people from living there or staying there. We are not rational beings! Christians should be seeking to stop genocide as well as abortion; maybe we, at times, have had a bad strategy of promoting morality. This does not show that our SYSTEM is flawed but that our STRATEGIES are flawed. Though you seem to make it sound like no one suffers in the issue of abortion. It would seem that women who have had abortions would counter that; it would seem that some issues that arise from them increase suffering and decrease human flourishing (let alone the aborted fetuses).

 The stem cell issue is a complicated one. I am no scientist so there is much that I do not understand; what I remember from my biology classes and reading on the issue problems leaves some ignorance and confusion so if I am wrong, please someone correct me. However, I think that scratching your nose versus creating and destroying embryos is a bit of a different process (p.30). My cells and the embryos themselves are different; the embryos constitute what becomes a person, a single cell does not. There are problems with when the soul comes into a physical beings in light of division of cells, etc. I admit those things. However, you do not seem to offer any sort of alternative on when life begins? Is it at viability? Implantation? I see no standard of a “person” in your argument that you can argue for; you only argue against, but we need something else to believe if you have an “objective moral system” within naturalism.

 Good for God

You are right, many Christians do “good for God” and not “good for others.” This is because we seek to justify ourselves. When we DO GOOD FOR GOD and expect rewards, we are like the elder brother in the prodigal son who is lost. You are attacking religion here, not Christianity!

 Are “Atheists Evil”?

Another objection you level that if Christianity is true, then atheists should be evil people. This misconstrues what Christians believe about a lack of faith. Can we do good, humane works as unbelievers. Yes! Can we sense morals and do them—yes! This seems to be what Paul says in Romans 1-2. We do not say that an unbeliever is going to be as evil as they can be because they do not believe God. We have a theological category for this—general revelation. Therefore, as opposed to contradicting Christianity, it actually confirms it! Furthermore, later on in the book you state that there are people (liberals and moderates) who believe but who “don’t know what it is like to really believe in God” (p.83). Couldn’t the same be said for atheists? That is, your morality is contradictory, and that the French Revolution is more of what “true atheism” looks like? If you are going to level this attack at faith, you can level the attack at non-faith (or faith in humanity).

 The Goodness of God

The problem of evil is always a difficult one that everyone needs to solve. Either stuff happens or stuff happens for a reason. I choose the latter, but in some ways that is based upon faith. The old question of theodicy, though, has a major flaw in it; God will eliminate evil, but in the meantime allows it to exist. He can destroy it, He knows about it, but He chooses to take a different approach than we might like. This is logical—it is difficult, but not illogical. You choose to believe that stuff just happens but we still get upset about it; we can solve our problems ourselves. This is logical but I find even more difficult, as nothing in the history of the world shows that we can improve things. Shouldn’t the world be getting better; shouldn’t we have less, not more, war? If “reason” is the answer, it is doing a pretty bad job.

 Power of Prophecy

You claim that if there was a God who could predict future, he would be a lot more specific about prophecies. This, first of all, is a lucidrous argument on your part. You don’t think that the existence of such a God is possible, so why even bring it up. More importantly, it is a not belief it God that then goes to Scriptures but the other way around; the Scriptures testify to what this God is like. Are they consistent in themselves in how they would portray God? Is He interested in impressing people with mathematical accuracy? No, He is interested in saving people, in redeeming people. The whole Scripture is a testimony about Jesus (John 5:29). Do we see the Scriptures pointing to Christ all throughout. Yes! Therefore, the sort of prophecy we see is what we would expect from its claims itself. Yes, this is a bit of a circular argument, but it is one that is meant to show consistency. Your argument is hypothetical and not convincing. And you do not marshal forth any new objections. For example, the “mistranslation of Isa 7:14,” reflects an extraordinary word used in the Hebrew that the Greek picks up; the virgin birth itself is what moves to the need to examine this passage, it would seem. Why do these prophecies sound like something someone in the first century would say? Because they were spoken of in time and space. Is the God that you oppose one who does come to the world in real-time and space? If so, the God you oppose is not the one who is in the Scriptures.

 Science and Religion

Religion and science are not opposed to each other; are philosophy and science? I wonder if you think philosophy is even valid, but to have an ethical discussion, it seems that it is (or a logical discussion). I would put religion in the category of philosophy of METAPHYSICS. By definition, it addresses things that, you admit, science cannot answer. For example, what is the purpose of the world? Is there one? Why are things messed up? Science cannot and does not seek to address these things; religion does. Genesis 1 speaks of the who and the why of creation, things that science can never address. They are addressing different questions. Each arises from a certain set of presuppositions that cannot be proven, only confirmed. Cause and effect cannot be proven but we live in a universe where it gets confirmed (as every scientific theory). If we think of the same idea in the philosophical sphere, then Christianity can be seen to be plausible and fit the universe. For example, the “arguments for the existence of God” are meant to show the plausibility of the existence of God; that it would fit the universe that we have. It only makes sense if you believe and then confirms it. This is how a scientific theory works as well, isn’t it?

 The Facts of Life

Which moves perfectly to your questions on intelligent design. The problem with the intelligent design movement. The problem most people make with intelligent design is forgetting that we live in a fallen world according to the biblical testimony. If you believe you Bible, you have to show corruption in the world, in the creation itself, which shows the fall. People that point out the “unintelligent design” (like yourself) do that. Thank you. You actually show that the world we live in matches the world depicted in the Bible. Furthermore, the comment that God must be very interested in beetles makes sense of the Scriptures as well; if He has numbered the hairs on our heads and has His eye on the sparrow, then it would make sense that He would have such an interest in beetles and the creatures of the earth (as well, micro evolution could be a factor which is accepted by most Christians). Rather than demolishing my faith, you have seemed to confirm it in this section!

 The Violence of Religion

I would once again turn your claim that those moderates who do not do this do not really believe back upon itself. Those who use violence (in the name of Christianity) do not truly believe the gospel. Those who use religion to oppress others, though, do what people want to do as fallen creatures, be in charge. Religion is a problem because it becomes an –ism, but non-religious ideas can become “ism”’s as well. This does not threaten the gospel message.

 

I would like to add two thoughts:

 What is Absent?

You do not bring historical objections to Christianity, to the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Had you done so, if you can show that we cannot trust the accounts that we have, then you are “demolishing” the Christian faith. You look to science, morality, and the like, but if Jesus came and was who he said he was and did what he said he was going to do, then all those objections need to be rethought. He breaks the rules of physical sciences by rising from the dead! Therefore, he breaks your natural mindset. Until you do so, you have not addressed Christianity.

 The Old Atheism and the New Atheism

You seem to attack religion and Christendom in many ways. Let us move to the origin of Christianity. Christianity was viewed very different in the first three centuries of the Common Era. It was seen as atheism. As Tim Keller points out in Prodigal God, Christianity was seen as atheism because it had no temple, no sacrifices, no priesthood, etc. It subverted the religious order of the day. It subverts the religious order of our day as well, telling us it is not how good we are but how God is the only solution to our problems. Therefore, the answer is not the New Atheism but the Old Atheism: Christianity. Religion and the religious right is the problem. The gospel and the God of all grace, the God of Jesus Christ, is the solution.

Sorry this is so long, but I still wish I could do more work on it. Thank you for reading it.

Sincerely,

Brian