I have observed elsewhere that evangelical atheists such as Hitchens and Dawkins have contempt for so-called ‘moderate’ Christians. I wonder why. Could it be that the views of ‘fundamentalists’ are easier to attack?

The viewpoints of ‘moderates’ are not necessarily the products of cowardice and compromise. If moderates have arrived at their positions through scholarship, reason, prayer, and inspiration, then their views are worthy of respect. Moderates should be prepared to stand up for what they believe against attacks from extremists of either side, atheist or fundamentalist Christian.

Remember how you felt in the first flushes of love. Did you intellectualise
about what to tell your friends? or could you just not help your self. When we truly love, we want to shout it from the roof tops.

Being an apologist, I’m disappointed that most apologetics has taken the non-relational approach towards defending the faith. The the most enduring of the last century were literary, imaginative, psychological, as well as philosophically/theologically versed. Today’s apologists seem to hover around the philosophical/theological and so we grow less interesting. I’m glad Wilson was willing to step into the fray with Hitchens, as Wilson is a man of the historical liberal arts before a man of the modern analytic academy. And, hence, likely a big reason he garners Hitchens respect.

Evangelicals, in general, tend away from the relational in our apologetics, which is why it has become a general turn-off in the marketplace as well as in the church. My wife, Jonalyn, and I wrote a book coming out this coming Spring to help start a new kind of apologetic conversation. It’s called “Coffee Shop Conversations: Making the Most of Spiritual Small Talk.”