A recent video shows Richard Dawkins speaking about how he is a ‘cultural Christian’ now. You can watch the full LBC interview with Rachel Johnson here:

What is interesting about this kind of video – and it really isn’t the first of its kind – is how many seem to view it. Some seem to be suggesting Richard Dawkins is “moving in the right direction”. Others have argued it is part and parcel of the movement we are seeing of people towards Christianity. Others again are simply bemused. What should we make of this kind of thing?

I think Dawkins comments here should give us pause before we start crowing about the revival of Christianity. In recent years, we have seen the likes of Tom Holland (the historian), Russell Brand, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Jordan Peterson land there or thereabouts. Some of them now claim to be Christians, some merely recognise that they are the product of Christian culture, some of them are at best Christian adjacent. It would be my view that Dawkins is part of a piece. I am less convinced there is a great movement toward Christianity, and more of the view that many are beginning to realise what should be evident: Christianity has provided the framework in which we now operate and, therefore, grounds the values most of us find self-evident.

What Richard Dawkins is clear about is that Islam represents a fundamental threat to his worldview. The views and values of the majority world are significantly at odds with basic rights and freedoms he considers self-evident. What he recognises is that Christianity, which he calls a “fundamentally decent religion”, is not. He affirms that he would much rather live in a Christian country than an Islamic one, but fails to join the dots that it is being a Christian country that means he has the freedom to believe what he does. History tells us that not only would he not get those freedoms and rights in an Islamic country, they have generally not been found in Atheistic nations either. Nor, incidentally (though he seems to care less about it), in Hindu or Buddhist nationalist states either. Only Christianity provides the framework for Dawkins to be free to believe what he wants and affirms the values he takes for granted.

Where that puts Dawkins, I think fairly honestly at least, is in the position of what he deems being a “cultural Christian”. He doesn’t believe the vast majority of the core tenets of Christianity, but he does like the fruit of what it provides. He is perhaps waking up to the fact that one cannot have the fruit without the root, but he doesn’t want to believe it himself. He likes the trappings of Christianity but not so much the underlying beliefs. This, I suspect, is where a lot of the so-called moves towards Christianity are at. They are not really spiritual moves of the Spirit towards Christ and away from sin so much as cultural moves towards the social framework Christianity provides. They are cultural Christian moves.

I think when we recognise these things, we might begin to see the futility of the reinstitution of Christendom (such as we can even make that happen) for any sort of kingdom-advancing purpose. What most seem to want is the freedoms that come in a Christian framework without any commitment to the beliefs of Christianity. They ultimately see Christianity as a good vehicle for the freedoms they really want. They are not being moved towards Christ, so much as moved to call themselves cultural Christians who are pleased that our country has not followed the forms of Islam. To them, it is nothing more than a good bulwark against some of the nasty stuff they don’t like in the world rather than anything they are moved to actually believe and follow for themselves.

The Christendom these guys hanker after does nothing for the actual kingdom of God and will not lead anyone into it. It is no different really to the Christendom of old, that created many a nominal believer for whom the kingdom was no nearer to their hearts than the pagans who were (physically) far off. Indeed, It was often detrimental to the kingdom, making many believe they were safe in Christ when they were nothing more than cultural Christians like Richard Dawkins. They were people with a false sense of comfort because they like and enjoy the trappings of Christianity and believe, because they were born in a “Christian country” (such as Christian countries can really exist at all), they were Christians whose heritage will see them right with God in the end. It was, all told, a travesty to the name of Christ to put his name against nations (which scripture does not do) in order to provide a veneer of Christian comfort to those outside the kingdom and who will be no safer on the last day than the Muslims they thank God they are not like.

The New Testament simply doesn’t concern itself with the naming of nations as “Christian”. It concerns itself with a people who are not a people from every tribe, tongue and nation. It does not concern itself with turning this or that nation Christian, so much as seeing all individuals – both Jew and Gentile – come to true and meaningful faith in Christ. It concerns itself, focusing quite a lot on the terms ‘aliens and strangers’, with making people citizens of God’s kingdom which Jesus is quite clear ‘is not of the this world’. It is concerned with making individuals submit to the ultimate rule of Christ who will then be good citizens of both the Heavenly kingdom and the kingdom in which they live. It provides no framework or blueprint for Christians taking power and installing Christian values across their Christian nations. Instead, it focuses on individual believers, who love Jesus, living faithfully for him and therefore being good citizens of their particular nations in whatever place the Lord has put them, whether politician and high official, or butcher, baker and candlestick maker.

So what are we to make of Richard Dawkins pronouncement? No more or less than he finally perceives what is biblical: the world is better when people live in line with the design of God, the creator. He, of course, doesn’t want that God. He doesn’t want to name Jesus as Lord. He simply recognises, in God’s common grace, that God’s design is indeed better than our man-made inventions. But seeing that much, it tells me that even if we were in a position to enforce such a framework, we would no more make believers of anyone than we are now. An acceptance of the virtue of Christian values is not enough to make real Christians. Whilst the implementation of a second-wave of Christendom might appeal to Christians, for whom the current cultural zeitgeist can be uncomfortable and difficult, it is liable to be detrimental to Christianity, leading many to accept the virtues and values whilst having a false sense of comfort and hearts that remain as hard as stone towards the Christ from whom they emanate. In other words, hankering after a Christian nation, a new Christendom, will do little more than get us a nation of Richard Dawkins. Which doesn’t seem so appealing from a gospel and kingdom point of view.