I’ve spent some time reflecting on the debate that has taken place following my reflections on Monday’s Q&A debate.

First of all, I didn’t write this post with the intention of converting atheists (I can hear the atheists saying – “well in that case you were very successful!”). This audience for Communicate Jesus is primarily Christians, although atheists (and those of any other faith – don’t take the bait!) are welcome here any time.

Secondly, I’d like to thank all who participated in this debate for doing it in good spirits, without resulting to death threats, foul language and a general hatred for the other. I’ve seen some ugly debates where neither atheists or Christians have acted in a way that would make either atheism or Christianity seem an attractive option for someone looking in on the conversation. Thanks for keeping the debate in good spirits.

However (and thirdly), I’m far from convinced of the value of having these discussions online. There’s a couple of reasons for this -

• The participants have different amounts of time, allowing some to write long responses, others to write shorter responses. The problem comes when the person who wrote the longer response thinks k that the person who wrote the shorter is avoiding the questions! You don’t get to you talk, I listen, I talk you listen conversational style that is necessary for these types of conversations.
• It’s easy to forget that we are all people, and it’s easy to slip into treating one another in a way that we certainly wouldn’t do face to face.
• So much of our communication is non-verbal, and for a topic that is so personal, a conversation that is missing so many of these non-verbal cues (tone, facial expression, etc) is prone to misunderstanding and potentially, hurting those who read. No one wants that.

Fourthly, I’m yet to see much value in these debates. The points raised are never new, the arguments are circular and they never go anywhere. They’re also of interest to a very limited pool of people.

In short, my conclusion is that the nature of the medium makes these conversations nigh on impossible, and highly unfruitful. So I’ve decided not to publish any more atheist/Christian-related comments on that post.

Amidst a lot of debate about morality, evolution, other religions, objective and subjective truth, the age of the earth, how God acts in the Old Testament and more, I’d like you to know this one thing: meeting Jesus changed my life.

As I read about Jesus in the Bible I see a man who is like no other. I see a man with authority over all creation – wind, waves, demons, disease, death – none are a match for Jesus. I see a man who treats all people as they should be treated. I see a man who rebukes the proud, but has compassion on the people who are meek, weak and down-trodden. I see a man who practices what he preaches. I see a man who explains how we ought to relate to God and each other. A man who explains that love is about getting your hands dirty. I see a man whose teaching amazed the crowds, but infuriated the religious leaders. I see a man who said “I have come that you may have life, and have it to the full”. And for all his perfect living and teaching, he was nailed to a cross to suffer the most agonizing death humans could concoct.

And three days later, he rose again.

And the Bible tells me that Jesus wasn’t just any man. Jesus was the son of God. It’s the only conclusion I can come to when I examine his life. And the Bible tells me that this life, death and resurrection were God’s means of providing forgiveness for me, and for you, and for anyone else who will believe it to be true. And boy, do I need forgiveness. I haven’t acknowledge God as God. I haven’t lived rightly under his rule. I haven’t given him the glory he deserves. I haven’t loved others as I’ve loved myself. I know me better than anyone else, and I can tell you – I’m deserving of God’s wrath.

But God doesn’t treat me as I deserve. He is merciful and shows me grace. He sent his son to die in my place. God raised his son from the dead to prove that I too will rise up from the dead – death shall not be the end.

This may sound like a foolish message to you. Richard Dawkins thinks it’s foolish that God would send his son to die on a cross for the sins of the world  – but the truth is, this foolish message is my salvation and gives me unspeakable joy.

This message can be your joy and salvation too.

…

(Title image attribution: http://www.flickr.com/photos/thehappyrobot/ / CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)

Last night I watched Q&A on ABC1. It was only the second time I’ve watched it, and I watched it in good company with some friends on Twitter (@dylanmalloch, @nicolieadams and @leasey_lu) as we shared our reflections and frustrations with each other. And there were a lot of frustrations. Here are my reflections on the debate – I’d love to hear yours if you were watching. If you missed it, you can watch it online.

On the show’s format…

• I’m impressed by the interactive nature of Q&A. The ABC has done a good job of allowing people to ask questions not just in the audience, but also via SMS and online. They have a Twitter stream set-up, so people from around Australia can share their thoughts, live. Nice work ABC on running a show with this format.
• I think this format for a television show has great possibilities for dialogue, and Twitter is the obvious platform. Tonight, so many people were on Twitter, sharing their views (and most of them weren’t the same as mine!) but the opportunity to interact and offer differing points of view is there. The challenge, is to venture outside our own camps and engage with those of differing points of view. You can see some of the comments made on Twitter during and after the show here.
• I’ve only seen the show twice, and both times I think it was over-represented by politicians. Tonight there was Tony Burke, Steve Fielding and Julie Bishop. I like politics (and am a proud participant in my church’s politics discussion group!) but when you get a couple of politicians together, the debate quickly descends into lots of opponent-gouging, whilst artfully dodging whatever question you are actually asked.

On Richard Dawkins and atheism…

• I was surprised at the level of support Richard Dawkins received from the audience. His comments were warmly received with applause – is this a reflection on Australia becoming more interested in atheism, or was the audience carefully picked to spark some fires? I signed up to join the audience of a future show, but there wasn’t a space to state my religion, so I’m not sure how they would pick the crowd (but notice the Muslims placed in the front row within eye-balling distance of Dawkins!).
• We ought to be concerned at the support that was expressed to Dawkins’ subjective morality – the logical implications of this are frightening. It surprises me that this was received with support. If everyone gets to do what seems right to them, we’re in a whole lot of trouble. Do we really want a world where everyone does what pleases them?
• I’m amazed at Dawkins’ ignorance (feigned or otherwise) at the impact of his words on others. He rubbishes what the Bible says happened when Jesus died on the cross (to the sickening applause from the crowd), ridiculing this truth, and then when confronted about his antagonism says “I’m just telling you Biblical doctrine”. In fact, to any observer it is clear he is not just “telling Biblical doctrine” – the way it is worded, delivered and then packaged with his opinions is all with the obvious intent of having a good laugh at anyone who considers that Jesus dying on the cross was God’s method for redeeming a broken humanity. It will be an interesting day when Richard Dawkins meets the Lord Jesus Christ.
• The similarity between Dawkins and some of his followers is frightening, namely their utter disrespect for anyone who ‘believes’ anything other than atheism and their inability to engage in any form of meaningful debate. For example, here are three tweets sent last night: “The Q&A panel thought Dawkins didn’t respect their views. What’s to respect?! Creationism and (confessed) half formed opinions?”, and “Still staggered by Q&A last night! How can morons like steve fielding and Julie bishop actually represent Australians?”, and “And people wonder why Dawkins is an arrogant prick when he spends half his life getting questions like that from dickheads”. For the record, I’m not saying that every atheist is like this (I have friends who are atheists who are not). But those who follow hard after Dawkins, not surprisingly, start looking like him. It’s not surprising then either, as The Times Online reported recently, when his followers turn on him with the same level of vitriol.
• On a related note, and where I discovered the link to the Times article, check out this interesting experience of my friend, Glen, in his post ‘Commenting on an atheist site‘.
• I was reminded that people on Twitter and in the audience (and Australia in general) have an ignorance about the Bible, and this is falsely informing their opinions about Jesus. It’s like they have decided they don’t like someone, before they have even met them, based purely on second-hand information that is incorrect. This saddens me – if you reject Jesus, that’s your decision, but please meet the real Jesus first.
• Obviously as an atheist, Richard Dawkins doesn’t believe in life after death, that there is anything more than ‘this’. But his reflection that “how much more would you want than this – this is wonderful!” is sadly naive – for the majority of the people in this world, ‘this’ daily existence is miserable – as @nicolieadams said, “take him to the Congo and see how that statement goes down.” 1.4 billion people in the world live on less than US$1.25 per day. Most of the world goes to bed hungry each night. They are not saying to each other “how much more than you want than this – this is wonderful!”.

On the other panelists…

• At first I was disappointed in Tony Burke when Tony Jones asked him for his opinion and he said “”you’ve got me where I didn’t want to be”. However, he spoke up for what he believed in and was more definitive and clear than any of the other panelists about the Christian worldview. He stood up to Dawkin’s bullying and he was reasonably articulate – a pleasant surprise. Thanks Tony Burke for your willingness to speak up for what you believe.
• I was confused about the other panelists (the Rabbi, Julie Bishop, the Professor and Stephen Fielding). None of them really seemed to want to stand up and be counted for what they believe, nor (though I don’t think Stephen Fielding was asked this question), did any of them have anything more than a vague hope that there is something more than ‘this’. The Rabbi explained that (and I’m para-phrasing here) we can hope for nothing more than to do our best and hope for the best. This saddened me – Jesus gives a sure and certain hope in life beyond the grave for all who will put their trust in him.
• A final reflection on Christians and the media. If you are a Christian and are going to be interviewed, you need to be prepared for the questions you are going to get. And you can prepare because the questions are always the same. They’re about creation, teaching creation in schools, does God hate homosexuals, isn’t the God of the OT terrible, wasn’t Jesus just a nice guy, should we teach religion in schools, doesn’t religion teach brainwash people and make them to be intolerant of others. When Steve Fielding was asked about homosexuality, he looked very uncomfortable, explained that he doesn’t hate gays, and that he doesn’t believe the part of the Bible that was (misunderstood) by the person who asked the question in the audience. I don’t doubt that being a Christian in a format like Q&A is extremely difficult, and good on Steve Fielding for going on. But it seemed to be an opportunity squandered by poor preparation, when the questions were never going to be out of the blue. This format provides Christians with great opportunities to speak truth and to clarify misunderstands – I’ve seen Archbishop Peter Jensen do this brilliantly in the past. I’d be keen to see the Archbishop on Q&A sometime!

On a more light-hearted note…

• Finally, it’s been amusing to see the fun that’s been made out of Julie Bishop’s death stare, delivered when an audience member spoke while she was speaking. For example “… and I’m amazed the fire alarm didn’t go off in the studio after Julie Bishop’s stare immolated that audience member.” In fact, a Facebook group has already been started in honour of the stare! It’s been the most popular (#qanda) related topic of discussion since the show!

Over to you…

What were your reflections on the debate?