Despite the fact that I am a missiologist (missions = evangelism + social justice in a cross-cultural setting), I find that some of the toughest people to reach with the Gospel are right here in my own context: postmodern Western atheists. Let me offer the way that I often approach them—with the disclaimer that every person is different in terms of their resistance and personal situations, and ultimately it is God that does the work in their heart. No program or strategy will be effective unless the Holy Spirit is behind it. So, prayer is of the essence.
I find that the three biggest assumptions/obstacles that postmodern Western atheists have are universalism, relativism, and tolerance. Before anything else, you have to address these three issues otherwise they cannot move on to other thoughts.
Regarding universalism, I point out that it is an untenable position to hold that all religions are the same. There is a reason that interreligious worship services never work: they appeal to no one. No Muslim or Buddhist or Christian or Jew will say that their religion is the same as the others; if there is anything they can all agree on, it’s that each religion is not the same as, and cannot be blurred with, the others. Maybe Hinduism can say this, as they have 100 million gods, but all other religions argue for exclusivity as one of their characteristics.
As for relativism (really, universalism is just a subset of relativism), that does not hold water either, because everyone (even postmodernists!) operates on standards of absolute truths, otherwise you cannot do science or logic. We cannot even be having this conversation if there is not an assumption of absolute truth, otherwise we would not even make sense to one another, because language is predicated on mutual assent of what words mean. And the statement “All truth is relative” is in and of itself an absolute statement, so it undermines itself by its own force.
Finally, the issue of tolerance is not a bad one if it is balanced by free speech. In Western democracies, we believe in both, and they seem to go together if tolerance means “I will accept your right to believe as you wish.” However, tolerance has become twisted to mean, “Everyone should leave everyone else alone—you can do whatever you want to do, as long as it doesn’t infringe on me in the least.” This is absurd thinking; a society is based on social relationships, and it is impossible for people to not be affected by anybody else. Unless one were to go into a cave and become a hermit, our ideas will affect each other—but that is for the better. We are not a totalitarian society where nobody is allowed to say anything that anybody else disagrees with. Rather, the tension is between “I have the right to try to convince you of my position,” and “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”* It is my right to tell you what I think; and it is your right to hold whatever position you think. This is how free speech and tolerance go hand in hand. Jim Wallis has a great quote: “Faith is always personal but never private.” He highlights a distinction that is often missed by many atheists and liberals. Religion has always been public and corporate. The solution is not to remove religion from the public sphere, but to respect each other’s rights to express our faith openly, so long as the ones who profess faith do not use force or undue coercion to achieve their ends (and it goes without saying that those who do not profess faith should not use force or undue coercion against those who do!). So, if you will allow me to speak my mind, and indeed to tell you that you are wrong (and to give plausible reasons why), I will also promise to listen to your side equally, and to leave you alone when you feel enough is enough.
(For more on navigating the difficulties between modernism and postmodernism, and why I don’t think that postmodernism is the evil many Evangelical Christians think it is, see my blog here)
If you can lay the foundation with the above, then I ask them to consider three major questions, in this order:
1) Is there such thing as the divine?
2) If there is a divine, is it polytheistic or monotheistic?
3) If it’s monotheistic, then is it Judaism, Christianity, or Islam?
Regarding the first question, consider the world (this is what Christians call general revelation). The second law of thermodynamics is entropy, the fact that everything descends into chaos unless there is intelligence behind it to create and maintain order. The way the world works, from the ecosystem down to our own physical bodies, is utterly amazing and more finely complex than any machine or computer ever created. Is this all an accident? I think you have to have more faith to believe in this universe being a huge accident than that there was intelligent design behind it. (I don’t think it’s helpful to tackle the creation-evolution debate at this point; that is a rabbit trail which will often be an unnecessary diversion. Suffice it to say that we are not talking about whether things change, but whether there is a God as a source behind it all, which are two different questions).
As for the second question, if they assent to the possibility of the divine, then you have to ask whether there is one God or a multiplicity of gods. Throughout human history, the tendency is toward polytheism. I think that this is our sinful nature hardwired into us. We love to worship celebrities, objects, ideas, trends, saints, and objects of our romantic affection. At its most extreme, we have pantheism, where even rocks and trees are gods. It goes against our nature to worship only one God. There is a parallel to be drawn with sex (the Bible draws this parallel too, as the word “to know” in Hebrew can mean either to worship God, or to have sex with a woman—and worshiping another god is akin to committing adultery). Men especially, if given free reign, would want to sleep with a multiplicity of women; monogamy goes against our nature. However, to stay with one God or one woman is much healthier in the long run. Even the most atheistic men, if they sleep with many women, end up in disaster (e.g. Tiger Woods). To stay loyal to one (God or woman) ultimately is more rewarding and is less fraught with peril. There is one other argument for monotheism: it actually makes more sense in terms of divine sovereignty. In Greek mythology, it does not matter if you worship Zeus, or Athena, or Apollo, or no god at all. You are just as likely to be harmed or helped no matter what you do, because the gods war against each other, so in a sense it is absolutely pointless to honor any divinity. (Take Hektor from the Iliad, for example—he was the best worshiper of Zeus, but that helped him not a whit in his battle against Achilles, because Zeus turned against his very own man). In fact, probably the best way to keep from harm is to avoid catching the attention of the gods at all, then they will just leave you alone. No, if there is the divine at all, monotheism goes against our urges, but it is the only way that works and makes sense in the final analysis.
Finally, the third question: if monotheism, then why Christianity (rather than Islam or Judaism)? One answer is that it’s the most egalitarian religion in the world. It is the only religion which says that your salvation is not predicated on what you do, but only by faith. If works is the basis for your salvation, then of course some people have greater knowledge or ability or tenacity or strength, and access to God ends up being inherently unequal. But anybody can have faith! This levels the playing field. In addition, Christianity is the most widespread religion in the world; it is not localized in one place, unlike all the other religions (Islam in the Middle East and North Africa, Hinduism in India, Buddhism in SE and East Asia, Judaism in Israel). If there is truly a God up there, and he truly loves the world, I think he would give everyone the best chance to know him, namely a worldwide geographical spread combined with the “easiest” access to him. (Of course this is a very crude way in which to put Christianity, but we’re working with their starting assumptions for the moment; you can’t get more refined until they have accepted certain other premises first). Christianity is the most egalitarian religion in the world, it is the most widespread religion in the world, and it is the most accessible religion in the world. As people mature and go further in discipleship, they will find that the road is not easy, but the initial entry into the community of faith is more open than any other religion on earth.
I want to end, though, by saying that all of the above is based on logic. Logic is great, but when it comes to heart vs. head, heart wins every time. I know of a lot of Christians who may not have all their questions answered, but they know in their heart that God is real and alive in them. They have vibrant faith. On the other hand, I have been able to “win” theological arguments with atheists, but at the end of the day, though they may not have the answers to rebut me, they will not assent to Christianity because their hearts are not changed. Yes, it takes both—head and heart—but you can have the latter with less of the former; you cannot have the former without a strong dose of the latter. And, ultimately, you must love them. This is not just a check-off list; anybody you engage must be someone you care about. They can see straight through you if you do not care for them, and your words will ring falsely. Invest in people, love them, and by doing so hopefully they will see God’s love in you.
*This latter quote is attributed to Voltaire, but never appears in his writings. It comes from The Friends of Voltaire, written by Evelyn Beatrice Hall and published in 1906 under the pseudonym Stephen G. Tallentyre. Despite its origins, I like it, much as I like the quote (falsely) attributed to St. Augustine: “In things essential, unity. In things nonessential, diversity. In all things, charity.”
