Last night I attended my first ever Atheist lecture at Metro State in downtown Denver. I was actually very excited to hear a “lead Atheist” express his beliefs, or as I would later learn, his lack of belief. It is very important to me to understand the points of view of others. If I cannot understand or at least make an attempt to grasp what they believe then I cannot “become all things to all men” and present the gospel in words that meet my audience where they are at. But I was sorely disappointed in the presentation and I think most intelligent Atheists would actually agree with me once I convey my reasons for that impression.Let me begin with a brief introduction of the speaker. Dan Barker is the author of the book, Godless. Dan is an evangelical preacher turned Atheist and now makes it his mission to convert Christians from Christianity to Atheism. He has served as a pastor in several capacities in both the Friend’s and Assemblies of God denominations. He also writes music and has written several VBS and other children’s musicals under the pseudonym, Edwin Daniels. Dan has a degree in Religion with a minor in NT Greek from Azusa Pacific.
Dan began the lecture by describing the allure in Atheism being its abandon of hierarchical structure and contrasted it to the hierarchy presented in most religions. The religions of Islam, Judaism and Christianity were brought up at this point but that is the last heard of Islam and Judaism. The rest of the lecture focused only on Christianity and his opposition to those beliefs. In reference to his evangelical past, Dan conveyed his enjoyment of his Christian life as wonderful but that “being an Atheist is a lot more fun.” As Mr. Barker walked us through his Christian experience he continuously mocked the 2nd coming of Christ which left me with the impression that perhaps he had been caught up with some of the major Jesus Movements typical of the 60’s and 70’s, and dying out in the 80’s. The waning of that movement seemed to characterize the timing of the waning of Barker’s faith.
Dan invoked Scripture often but usually out of context and misquoted, ignoring other pivotal scriptures such as "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.”(Mt 24:36) In an attempt to cast doubt on Jesus words “I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened”(Mt 24:34) as a reference to a 2nd coming, Dan expressed legitimate frustration over every generations impression of living in the end times. However, I would like to interject that the word used for “fulfilled” here is not indicative of a completed action but a bringing into existence similar to that of setting a stage in preparation for a scene to play out. The implication of Jesus' words are then not of completion of events but of circumstances necessary to set a series of events in motion. Before that generation ceased, all events would be set in motion for the beginning of the scene titled “end times”.
Mr. Barker spoke of his intellectual awakening at the age of 30 as the beginning of his process to abandon his faith, giving scientific evidence of a full development of his frontal lobe as a support of the change. In other words, his faith was simple childishness and immaturity. I cannot disagree. I do in fact believe that his faith was childish and immature. But God is not unaware of such physiological developments in humans and in fact waited often to call His servants until they were at least 30 years of age. This pattern is repeated throughout Scripture. I happened to have experienced a similar awakening at the age of 30 but mine seemed to have the opposite effect. I felt the need to “work out my salvation” and intellectually understand why I believed certain truths. I realized at that point in time my extreme love for Theology which has resulted in my attending seminary and pursuing that passion. In articulating this intellectual awakening, Barker sounded angry at his blind faith and jaded by his ignorance. This is understandable. I felt the same way upon searching out my own faith. How could I believe such a thing without exploring it further? My exploration, however only served to strengthen my faith whereas his exploration seemed to have weakened his own faith. Oswald Chambers stated the following:
Initially we trust in our ignorance, calling it innocence, and next we trust our innocence, calling it purity. Then when we hear these strong statements from our Lord, we shrink back, saying, “But I never felt any of those awful things in my heart.” We resent what He reveals. Either Jesus Christ is the supreme authority on the human heart, or He is not worth paying any attention to. Am I prepared to trust the penetration of His Word into my heart, or would I prefer to trust my own “innocent ignorance”?
While many of us may come to the faith out of a level of ignorance or innocence, God never expects us to remain at the state. The growth of one’s faith is very similar to the growth of an infant. We start out ignorant, but at some point in time, we must accept accountability for our actions and beliefs and grow and mature. But this did not happen for Mr. Barker. Instead of the natural progression of growth, he chose to abhor his ignorance and reject the faith completely. Barker referred to his ministry as a “stupid, infantile game.” He now views his state of mind as “intellectually mature” and superior to that of Christians. Here we arrive at the root of humanism - it is the love of one’s own mind as the end-all of faith. I admit to feeling prey to this belief all too often. When we gain intellectual ground it is easy to feel pride in those advances and forget that our minds are a very real reflection of an intellectual God. Instead of turning that pride to a state of humility to an all-knowing Creator, we stop short of that maturity and begin to worship our own intellect. It is natural to feel pride over the intellect, it is part of the image of God but it cannot end there; intellect must credit its source.
None of these issues get at the source of my frustration with the presentation and so now I turn to address that issue. Barker’s platform hinges on the Christian faith. Instead of presenting a set of beliefs and evidences, which is what I came to hear, he presented Atheism as an alternative to Christianity. I find this is a slap in the face of any intellectual advancement as I wanted to know why Atheism stands apart, alone, and superior to Christianity. Barker’s presentation felt parasitic in nature to Christianity, as if his “ministry” could not exist without it. I believe this is a betrayal to Atheism in general and I find it hard to believe a proponent such as Richard Dawkins would align himself with such a leech. The entire aura of the evening felt ‘evangelical’ in nature right down to the manner in which the event was advertised. He played on his past as an evangelical preacher to merit an audience; every expression of his belief had to be a response, counter, or mockery of the Christian faith; and even his upcoming book project is a humanist rebuttal of Rick Warren’s “Purpose Driven Life”.
My faith stands alone; I do not need Atheism to provide a platform for my faith and its expression. I believe this is the nature of truth. I also believe that this is the intent of Richard Dawkins work – that his Atheism can stand alone. So for this reason I cannot understand Mr. Dawkins support of Mr. Barker’s clear insubordination to the independence of Atheism. I found the entire evening fell far short of anything intellectual.
To make matters worse the Q&A portion revealed a multitude of inconsistencies with the lecture.
(1) Q: Why did you choose the truth of Atheism over the comfort of Christianity?
A: His response was in conflict to his opening statement that being an Atheist was simply much more fun than being a Christian. In his response he presented the decision as an absolute yes or no to Jesus (going back to the parasitic nature of his own version of Atheism – he needed Christ in order to even become an Atheist… how ironic.) To put it simply he stated that he “fell in love with his mind” and the Bible was anti-rational.
(2) Q: How do you respond to the accusation that you simply rush to the extremes of evangelical to atheist?
A: He is an evangelist no matter what he believes.
(3) Q: Should we all be conducting outreach – Atheistic Evangelism?
A: If it’s bad for us it’s bad for them (suggesting again that Atheism cannot stand alone and must feed and fuel itself off of Christian tactics.)
(4) Q: What is truth?
A: Truth is not a thing or morality; truth is the degree with which a statement corresponds to reality. The language of proposition must be supported by observation and evidence. Therefore Jesus cannot be truth (and yet another statement uses the foundation of Christianity for its existence).
(5) Q: Christian man came to the microphone at this point and apologized for the hatred Mr. Barker had experienced at the hand of the church and this was not indicative of the love of Jesus Christ.
A: Mr. Barker refused the apology and stated that the young man had no authority to speak for believers. (The demand for an apology carrying the weight of authority seems to be a direct contradiction to his support of the “freethinking” principle of no hierarchy. And yet here he demands the knee of some hierarchical structure to appease him. While I am on that note, how does one become a "lead Atheist" in a framework that recognizes no hierarchy?)
In summation, I felt cheated of the intellectual presentation I showed up to witness and felt more as if I had stumbled in on a locker-room pep talk for Atheists, lacking any substance but full of derision and fluff. My recommendation if you want to find material worthy of the title Atheist, is to look at Richard Dawkin’s work and not the intellectual freeloading of Dan Barker.
