This is a superficial use of the data, ignoring the reasons for the apparent discrepancy between atheists and born agains. For instance, merely looking at the divorce numbers overlooks the fact that atheists have less divorce because they marry less often; they tend to substitute cohabitation for marriage, and those relationships have a shorter duration than marriages.

Another common error in such arguments is that of assuming that being Christian is synonymous with being morally perfect. As any thinking Christian will admit, we remain sinners – aware of our moral failings, convicted of our moral imperfections, and seeking to raise our game to a higher level. I am not aware of any mature Christians who claim moral superiority over other people – that would be judgmental, which itself is a moral failing – but know many who lament the fact that Americans (be they atheist, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Jewish or otherwise) are not living up to a higher moral standard.

Another dimension of the atheist arguments I have recently read is that there is no standard to live up to; morally, in that view, is a personal choice, based on their determination of what serves their needs best. To me, that’s really scary since that renders murder, rape and other atrocities morally viable if so determined by personal preference.

It is abundantly easy to identify social statistics that support any desired perspective. What’s harder is to offer a compelling, comprehensive and viable worldview that does not have God’s moral standards at the center.

What do you make of this “moral authority” argument? It’s a sticky discussion because we are all immoral to one degree or another: we all sin and are therefore immoral (i.e., engaging in bad or illicit behavior, based on accepted standards). At what point does one’s sins, especially if they have been repented for and the sinner has taken steps to address and transform his behavioral patterns, get forgiven? Does forgiveness empower the sinner to re-enter his former bailiwick?

I’ve read a bunch of the books on these matters, but still find that it is not as black and white as some people apparently believe. And I’ve encountered the tough questions about who is justified in returning to their past livelihood. For instance, I would not want a pedophile to return to teaching in an elementary school classroom, even if they are “reformed.” I would not want a drug addict returning to his job as a pharmacist.

But I’m not as clear-cut in my thinking regarding how to respond to a humble, repentant and “rehabilitated” servant of God who wishes to return to share what he has learned on the most difficult part of his journey. After all, nobody is forced to listen to that person’s teaching, or to accept his leadership. When the person is a gifted servant who seems to honestly seek a chance to serve God again by using those gifts, and is willing to serve under the authority of moral people, do we have grounds for refusing him the opportunity?

Personally, I am moved by the degree of forgiveness Ted’s wife, Gayle, has shown toward him. I am affected by the willingness of his children to stand by him. I am struck by the scriptures challenge me to forgive others, seventy times seven, and to worry more about the log in my own eye than the specks of dust in the eyes of others. Ultimately, I want to be wise and discerning, but to remember that I am rarely qualified to throw the first stone at another sinner.