Atheism and the Liberal Church

J. Warner Wallace is a cold case homicide detective. It is his job to pour over the evidence from old,
unsolved murders to see if some overlooked detail may reveal the identity of the murderer. When
Wallace feels he has sufficient evidence to convict a suspect, he works with the prosecuting attorney to
build a case that will convince a panel of jurors that the suspect was responsible for the crime.
J. Warner Wallace is also a Christian Apologist. In this role, he uses the same techniques of evidence,
abductive reasoning, and logic in order to build a case for the truthfulness of the Christian faith.
“Reasonable Doubts” is a skeptical podcast and radio show aired by a panel of Atheists. As the title
implies, this panel also believes in the courtroom approach to their beliefs. In examining the relevant
evidence, they have concluded that enough doubt, based in reason, remains to deny the truthfulness of
any transcendent deity or power that has any relevance to their lives or society in general.
As much animosity as there is between the Skeptics and the Christian Apologists, there is also a
begrudging respect amidst the more sophisticated crowd. This respect exists because the two sides can
recognize that they are using the same techniques of evidence and logic to opposite ends. Some of them
are building arguments to support a conclusion that they already held while others, like Wallace himself,
held the opposite viewpoint until an examination of the evidence forced them to change their view.
Worldviews will always have an effect on the opinions and behaviors of their adherents. It’s not
surprising, then, that the Christian Apologists and the Skeptics will frequently find themselves at odds
morally, politically, and philosophically. Debates about the morality of abortion and homosexuality, for
instance, are as frequent between the two sides as are debates about Biblical accuracy and the origins of
life.
There is a third group, however, that is a strange animal indeed. This group agrees with the Atheist and
the Skeptic in almost every regard. They will, for instance, support a late dating to the writing of the
New Testament and deny the textual accuracy of these scriptures. They whole-heartedly embrace an
evolutionary outlook in all its particulars, while simultaneously denying the miraculous. Moreover, they
tend to have the same political, moral, and philosophical leanings as do the Skeptic crowd. And yet this
group call themselves Christians and will confess a belief in God. This is the Liberal Church.
Here “Liberal” is referring to so-called Christians who are doctrinally left-leaning, not Christians who are
politically liberal, although the two are usually one and the same. The Liberal Church will readily admit
that the evidence does not support any sense in which a God is necessary either for the existence of the
universe or for their moral conclusions, but they believe in God anyway. This crowd tends to call God
“The Great Mystery,” and so he/she/it must be, for this God has not given them anything that might
indicate what he/she/it is like. Scripture can’t be trusted because they will readily admit to its inaccuracy.
The existence of the universe cannot be leaned upon as evidence for a God, for that would have sprung
into existence whether God were there or not. Nor can moral impulses be appealed to, since all moral
frameworks are equally valid according to their thought. God accepts you no matter what you think, no
need to believe what they believe.
The Atheist and the Liberal Church will both advance the idea that man is intrinsically moral, however
the Atheist will appeal to evolution as the source of morality, whereas the Liberal Church will give God
the credit to these moral impulses. This, again, with no evidence to support this conclusion.
This is interesting, because the frequent cry of the Skeptic is “We can be moral without a God,” while the Liberal Church tries to sneak God in the back door by saying, “Whether you acknowledge Him or not,
God put goodness in your heart.”
In both these instances, the party advancing the argument makes the issue of morality to be the subject
of the argument. This is to be expected as morality is the central issue of practically every world religion.
Jews and Muslims have a restrictive set of moral laws, Hindus have the quid pro quo system of karma,
and Buddhists have the eightfold path.
Interestingly, though, Biblical Christianity is not about human morality. The very first premise of
Christianity is that human beings are incapable of being good, and that whatever behavior they may
judge to be good falls woefully short of God’s standard.
Stranger than this, however, is that in the view of the Biblical Christian, becoming a Christian does not fix
this. Instead, it earns the Christian forgiveness for the wrongdoing. The Christian will still make mistakes,
and these mistakes will also be forgiven.
There is a certain arrogance in any worldview that says that humans are capable of moral behavior
independent of any outside force. At the very least, the Atheists are consistent with their view of the
evidence and the resulting beliefs. The Liberal Church has no such consistency.
This way of building a religion reeks of intellectual dishonesty and is truly, as the Atheist would put it, a
blind faith.