A note to atheists before they attempt to refute Christianity

I have taken my share of black eyes in this blog by daring to tell atheists what they (ought to) believe. Who am I, a Christian theist, to inform an atheist what their beliefs are (or ought to be)? While I may not agree entirely (I still hold doggedly that atheism entails a knowledge or belief claim that God does not exist), I still see their point (It's like a New Yorker daring to tell a Londoner the best route to Paddington Station.)

But what is frustrating for an atheist is doubly frustrating for a Christian. Countless times I have seen atheists assume what I as a Christian must believe. And often this assumption reflects what is no doubt a very restricted experience with Christianity. (I base that on the assumption that atheists are not intentionally attempting to misrepresent what Christians believe.)

As a result, atheists who assume what a Christian must believe because they read a few Christian books or attended a church for several years are like self-described travel experts who offer authoritative advice on California vacations because they once stayed at the Super 8 in Pasadena.

So here are my top three pet peeves when it comes to atheist assumptions about Christian beliefs.

First, atheists often assume that Christians are committed to one specific concept of biblical inspiration and inerrancy, namely the kind that can be summarized as follows: "the Bible says it; I believe it; that settles it".

But Christian approaches to scripture run the gamut (both in terms of authority and hermeneutics or intepretation), though this fact surprises many atheists (and distresses many conservative Christians). Some Christians accept the scriptures as God's authoritative word, inspired and inerrant in every propositional affirmation. But others view scripture as inspiring if not inspired, and others go further yet as they adopt various nuanced understandings of scripture's meaning and authority.

Second, atheists commonly assume that Christians are committed to the most restricted conception of salvation, namely that only those who verbally assent to the proposition "Jesus is Lord" will be saved.  

But the reality is that some Christians are inclusivists, accepting that many who never hear let alone assent to the proposition "Jesus is Lord" will be saved. And one Christian trajectory (which has existed since at least the third century) is universalistic, affirming that all will be saved.

Finally, atheists assume that Christians are committed to one particular conception of God's action in the world, namely one in which God occasionally overrides (and thereby violates) natural law to actualize a miracle. Again, that is but one view. There are literally dozens of conceptions of God's divine action that range from the view that God causes everything to the view that God causes nothing.

All this is common knowledge among academic theologians, but is rare knowledge indeed among atheists. How should we explain this? In some cases that I know personally this is explained by the fact that certain atheists had a bad experience at church when a youngster or teenager, and never progressed beyond the level of Sunday school theology.

Be that as it may, my earnest appeal to atheists would be this: if you care enough about Christianity to refute it as thoroughly as you purport to do, then don't be content with a mere caricature based on a faded memory of bad Sunday school experiences. Read the full range of academic and popular theology first so as to understand what Christians really believe. And leave the straw man to the Wizard of Oz.