NAPs, COPs and APPLES
When Fundamentalisms Collide.

A couple of months ago we recorded two programmes for Premier Radio in London, together with Ed Turner an atheist apologist and Richard Morgan. These programmes have been broadcast over the past couple of weeks, the first we have already mentioned; the second can be heard here http://www.premierradio.org.uk/shows/saturday/unbelievable.aspx

The recording of the programmes was actually very pleasant. Ed was one of the best atheist apologists we have come across – he resisted the temptation to sneer at my obvious stupidity, he listened and he came up with some very good points. He made the best case for a very weak case and we personally warmed to him. It was a delight to meet Richard Morgan; if you don’t know his story then you can find it here. Richard was (unusually for this type of genre) exactly as he comes across in his writings – quirky, humorous, pleasant and very stimulating company. Justin Brierly presented the whole show, as he normally does with grace, intelligence and fairness. So really that should have been it. But then came the ugliness. The first show was posted on Richard Dawkins website (http://richarddawkins.net/article,4312,Unbelievable-From-Atheism-to-Chri...) . Even by the standards we have come to expect the response was ferocious and depressing. It would not be an exaggeration to say that the hounds of Hell were unleashed, on poor Richard Morgan in particular.

Unbelievable on RD net
Of course it made sense for the program to be put on RD net – after all Richard Morgan had been a frequent poster on the Dawkins website and had even been thanked by the man himself for composing a wee piece of music for his daughter. And the first “Unbelievable” program was about the role of the Internet and especially RD net in Richard’s conversion. It therefore made sense for it to be there and so the Webmaster put it on. Dr Dawkins was not a happy man with this and the Webmaster felt compelled to apologise. Dr Dawkins does not like criticism and for some reason which we struggle to understand, he seems to think that we are particularly beneath contempt.

As the criticisms began we did not want to leave Richard on his own to take the flack and so we decided to weigh in, with fear and trepedation. This was difficult because in that open minded tolerant way which is the penchant of RD net, we had been ‘auto-trolled’ – meaning that any post we put on the website was automatically sin-binned. Given that the thread was about yours truly, Richard Morgan and RD net Dr Dawkins was fair enough to allow us to comment. And then he posted his own view. Despite having another book just published and about to embark on another sell out tour of his fans in the US, he had managed to listen to the whole programme.

It would not have been my wish to give David Robertson a free platform here, and he certainly has no right to use a provocative phrase like 'seen fit to'. But since it has now unfortunately happened, I think he should be allowed to post here without being trolled. The problem with trolls usually is that they derail threads which, without them, would have developed nicely into an interesting conversation. Since this thread was never going to become an interesting conversation anyway, I see no problem with Robertson posting here, and there should be no reason to troll him.

One more thing, though. I have listened to the audio at the top of the page (it is STUPEFYINGLY boring, by the way, but that is an aside). Everything about Richard Morgan sounds pathetically weak and vulnerable, and I suspect that he is being ruthlessly exploited. I hope people will be polite anyway, but I especially hope Richard Morgan will not be subjected to unduly unkind remarks. As with the unfortunate Antony Flew, it is best to reserve criticism for the exploiter rather than the exploitee.

Or you might prefer, as I would, to ignore the thread altogether.

Richard

What is wrong with this comment? Some of the Dawkins disciples even saw fit to see this as a magnanimous statement on his behalf – after all did he not tell his followers to ‘be kind”? This is a bit like the villain in James Bond, sitting stroking his white cat as he tells his henchmen ‘now boys be kind,’ as they drag his latest victim off to his pre-ordained fate! Everything about Richard Morgan is pathetically weak and vulnerable – this is kindness! It was cruel in the extreme to describe Richard Morgan in this way. And of course, the Disciples took the hint and set out with a relish to ridicule, mock and abuse.

Twisting the Knife
That would have been bad enough (and to be frank par for the course for anyone who dares to contradict the New Atheist Prophet – Frances Collins, Simon Conway Morris, Alistair McGrath and Anthony Flew have all been the victims of the Wrath of Dawkins and described variously as fleas, senile, pathetic, etc), but what happened next was atrocious. I have no wish to go into the sordid details but the bottom line was that Richard Morgan was accused of sexual harassment because of some 'inappropriate posts). These are serious charges and the fact that RD allowed them to continue on his website, despite his earlier protestations that people should be ‘kind’ to this ‘weak and used creature’ was grotesque. (By the way I investigated these complaints - including writing privately to the people who were concerned and none of these posts have been provided nor any substantial evidence provided - indeed the only woman who was cited became Richard's Facebook friend AFTER he was supposed to have driven her away from RD net and informed me that she was not accusing Richard of sexual abuse).

The irony was that the program itself was about how unkind remarks caused Richard Morgan to begin questioning his atheist faith. Those who objected that this was untrue were automatically proved wrong by the unkind remarks and vicious campaign that followed. So what does all this teach us?

New Atheist Puritans - NAPs
There is a clash of two fundamentalisms here. An atheist fundamentalism that fundamentally cannot tolerate anything or anyone who dares to question or disagree with its presuppositions. Although this philosophy purports to be tolerant (and gets hysterically angry at anyone who would question that), in practice such is the absolutist certainty that they are right, that these New Atheist fundamentalists find it impossible to tolerate anyone who dares to take them on, on their own terms. What also struck us was how unforgiving and puritanical these fundamentalists are. Let us suppose for example that Richard Morgan had been guilty of writing inappropriate posts (not something that is unknown on RD net or indeed elsewhere). Is there no concept of forgiveness in atheist land? I guess there cannot be. What a horrible world to live in – where every thing is black and white, there are no shades of grey and your destiny and character, once fixed is fixed forever. Of course some of my atheist friends will disagree with their New Atheist friends. But the New Fundamentalists atheists really do have no concept of, or basis for, forgiveness.

Lets think about the use of that term 'puritanical' - In the strange kind of way that my mind works I began to think of Puritanism and have decided that we should really call our New Atheists Fundamentalists – New Atheist Puritans (NAPs). Puritanism has a bad name. It is considered to be intolerant, rigid, hard-line and moralistic. The NAPs fit that perfectly.

This fundamentalist moralism is seen in many different ways. Despite living in a post-modern society and denying the possibility of absolutes, the atheist fundamentalists seem to have a series of unbreakable and unforgivable absolutes. They look for reasons to condemn. They need to be able to write you off. Thus on almost every discussion I have been involved in on RD net, one of the Disciples will rant that I am a liar for Jesus (this being one of Dawkins’ favourite insults for his Christian opponents and one repeated ad nauseum by the Disciples). No matter how many times they are asked to produce evidence of a lie they are unable to do so. At best they come up with something where I was wrong (yes it does happen!), but they seem unable to distinguish between getting something wrong and lying. The trouble is that they HAVE to discredit and malign. How else can they justify themselves? Have I ever lied? Yes. It is the person who says they have no sin who is a liar. Have I lied on RD net – not as far as I know. But even if I had, what is the point of stating that? In Christian terms if I had done so then it is time to repent and seek forgiveness. In atheist terms you are finished (actually in atheist fundamentalist terms you are finished anyway – the lie would just justify the exclusion!).

Christian Oldstyle Puritans - COPs
It is at this point that I have to admit I am a fundamentalist. There are beliefs that are fundamental and foundational to my life – the belief that all human beings are created in the image of God, that the Bible is the Word of God, that sin and evil exist, that Jesus is the Son of God who died for our sins and rose from the dead, that human beings are to think and reason although our knowledge will always be limited, and that there is the absolute justice and love of God. All of these can of course be challenged, and if any of them were proven to be wrong, then it would change my life. But they are the fundamentals of my existence. And that is why I would class my self as a Christian Oldstyle Puritan – a COP.

And it is precisely because COPs believe these things that my reaction to hearing of other peoples sin is different from the Atheist Puritanism. I accept I am a sinner. Indeed if truth be told, when I am confronted with yet another barrage of accusations about what a lying, nasty swine I am, my inner response is to say - ‘you don’t know the half of it’! The older I get the more I can identify with Paul, who said towards the end of his life, ‘I am the chief of sinners’. Not ‘I was and then I became a lovely Christian’, but ‘I am’. Which is why I love the Lord Jesus so much – because he has forgiven me and paid the debt of my sin. In the world’s eyes I am nothing. In the eyes of the Disciples on RD net I am the Dawkins anti-Christ. But in the eyes of God I am the brother of Jesus, a son of the King. I am forgiven, clothed in righteousness and pure. It is an incredible and wonderful truth. Of course being a ‘justified sinner’ does not mean that I can then go out and sin with joy. It means that I hate sin all the more and will the utmost I can to avoid it – because I know what it cost my Saviour. But when I fall and stumble, as I often do, I know that I am not condemned. I don’t need to justify myself, I am justified by Christ.

Because I am a COP (taking those words as meaning those who seek to live in the light of Jesus Christ by the Word he has given us) I also know that there is one who will judge. I am answerable for every word I speak, not to the NAPs, but to THE Judge. And not just myself but everyone else.

Anti Puritan Please Love Everyone - APPLEs
At this point I want to bring in another group. People who are neither NAPs or COPs but who we will describe as Anti Puritan, Please Love Everyone (APPLEs). One very nice lady wrote me to say that God had told her that she should write me and say that I was not being nice to the atheists on the Dawkins website, that this was not a good witness and would be a stumbling block to the Holy Spirit working in their lives. This is of course at least partially true. Saying that I have sin, or express things wrongly at times is a truism. As stated above neither I nor any other Christian can claim any kind of perfection. However I find the APPLE solution lacking in several respects.

Firstly it is self-contradictory – you find that APPLEs are very quick to judge those they think are being judgemental. Secondly APPLEs tend to have a very shallow and low view of sin. If only people had been nice to Hitler and offered him a cup of tea then he might not have turned out as a mass murderer. To them the great sin is to be rude to people, or to express anger, or any kind of judgement (except of course when they are judging the judges!). They explicitly condemn those of us who are engaged in robust dialogue and call a lie a lie, and implicitly condemn Paul for saying that the Galatian heretics should go and castrate themselves, and even Jesus for calling the Pharisees ‘white washed tombs’? Did they not know that this was ‘unloving’. How could people be won for Christ with such rudeness?

It is not good to be rude. It is not good to try and upset people. However neither is it good to ignore injustice, lies and abuse. Sometimes there is a time to be silent, and sometimes there is a time to speak out. For far too long Christians have wimped out when it comes to robust debate. We think that it is tactically astute and loving to be ‘nice’ (although the word and concept of nice is never found in the New Testament). I prefer to speak up for the truth and to seek to do so with gentleness and respect. May God forgive me for the many times that that I have failed to do that. But as this recent episode with RD net has shown, for evil to succeed it is only necessary that good men do nothing. For me keeping silent in the face of such hatred, illogicality and bullying is not an option. I will continue to preach the Gospel knowing that for some we will be the stench of death, but for others we will be the perfume of life.