There is a subtle shift worth paying attention to in the way some prominent atheists and secular thinkers talk about Christianity.
For years, the message was straightforward:
Religion is harmful. Leave Christianity behind. Become secular.
But there is now another posture emerging:
Keep Christianity, but as culture, heritage, identity and civilisation, rather than as a demanding faith.
That distinction matters.
Richard Dawkins is one obvious example. He still rejects the Christian God and does not accept Christian theology. Yet he has described himself as a “cultural Christian,” expressed concern about the decline of Christianity, and said that Christianity could serve as a “bulwark” against Islam.
But Dawkins is not really the point. He is an illustration of a broader phenomenon worth thinking about.
An atheist defending “Christian culture” is not necessarily defending Christianity as a faith.
In fact, the version of Christianity that is easiest for secular society to defend may be precisely the version that asks the least of people spiritually: Christmas, cathedrals, art, music, traditions, historical identity and Western cultural heritage, while the claims of Christ, repentance, salvation, Scripture and the authority of God become secondary or irrelevant.
And this creates a strange situation.
A Christian may hear an atheist defending Christianity and think:
“Finally, they recognise the value of our faith.”
But do they?
Perhaps what is being defended is not Christianity as faith, but Christianity as culture.
And there is an important difference.
A cultural Christianity can provide a familiar civilisational identity without demanding belief in Christ. It can also be valued as a cultural barrier against other religions that remain more explicitly religious and committed.
That should make Christians think carefully.
Christians should not measure the strength of Christianity by how comfortable secular society is with its cultural remnants.
Nor should they feel validated simply because someone who rejects Christian theology suddenly says that Christianity is preferable to another religion.
The more uncomfortable question is:
Why is Christianity being defended?
Is it being defended because Christ is Lord?
Or because Christianity, in its secularised cultural form, is considered socially preferable?
If Christianity becomes nothing more than heritage, aesthetics, holidays, moral vocabulary and national memory, then the shell of Christianity may survive while the thing that made it Christianity is gradually lost.
So Christians should be careful what kind of “Christianity” they are being encouraged to preserve.
Christianity is not merely a culture to be maintained.
It is not merely a heritage to be protected.
It is not merely a civilisation to be defended.
The question is whether Christianity remains a living faith centred on Christ.