Strange as it may seem, I think I like Christopher Hitchens’ approach better. Hitchens at least understands what is at stake. This really isn’t about etiquette. Christians are to be kind and gracious, but the offense of the Gospel remains. It is not considered polite to tell persons that they are sinners destined for hell. Etiquette would demand that Christians abandon the claim that Jesus is the only Savior and that the Gospel is the only message that saves. Such claims are, in our modern context, considered insufferably rude.
In this sense, Hitchens understands what he rejects. It is clear that he has actually read the Bible, or at least much of it. He does not believe in God, therefore he does not believe that the Bible is divinely inspired. He sees the Bible as a hopelessly repressive book — a book to be opposed, not politely and dishonestly referred to as “sacred” just because Christians believe it to be so.
At least we understand each other. Both Hitchens and believing Christians understand the limits of etiquette. The Bible demands obedience and belief, not insincere compliments.
I agree with Mohler. The stakes aretoo high to be insincere. We must be bold, upfront, and honest. What is at stake here is the Word of God. This is no debate where we can mince words. I don’t see any reason for atheists to be ashamed of what they believe and consequences of their belief system. They should be proud! I don’t need them being nice to me because normally that niceness is mere condescension.
If you get the chance, read Mohler’s post. Romano’s post is a bit long and may need to be printed to be read fully.
Soli Deo Gloria!