I do agree that there's a lot of lukewarmness in the church, and not caring about the lost, too.

On the other hand, though, I think when the church is being criticized, we should consider the source.

We can weigh what an atheist says, but the Bible says those who don't accept the Lord have been taken captive by His enemy, Satan, to do his will.

And, too, Revelation calls Satan, "the accuser of the brethren."

Satan doesn't offer constructive criticism, but has destructive motives. He offers destructive criticism, though he may try to make it look constructive.

So often unbelievers come along and offer to take the mote out of the eyes of Christians. We should listen to them, but again, always remember the source. Satan will utilize legitimate criticism as a tool to try to undermine believers.

Atheists in our part of the world have had the benefit of knowing the Gospel their whole lives. The Good News is still Good News of course, but it's not news in the same way that it is in places where people have never heard of Jesus Christ and the Gospel. In the book of Acts, Paul preached in Athens to people who'd never heard of Jesus, and some scoffed, while others wanted to hear more, and even believed. When you hear accounts of missionaries going to remote places and bringing the Good News, they often mention people who are overjoyed to hear it. They've been living without the hope of a just and merciful God, and instead with idols that require all sorts of evil things, including sometimes human sacrifice.

Yes, God often touches the hearts of many people who have grown up with Christianity around them but have rejected it, so that suddenly they truly hear the Good News for what it is, but with many other people, they've heard the Gospel their whole lives and never accept it.

We can't know who might accept it after rejecting it, but when people who have rejected it and continue to reject it criticize the church, we have to wonder about their motivations when they offer us their opinions on Christianity.

When I hear so many atheists speak, they seem to assume they have moral superiority over the church, and that the church should strive to live up to their standards and what's good in their sight. In their view, they have clean hands, while Christians have dirty ones. Of course, they reject the idea that they're sinners who have trespassed against a holy God.

Atheists might not entirely realize they're trying to undermine Christians, or that they're doing Satan's bidding, but that doesn't change anything. And if we're not careful, we can assume their criticisms of the church are well-intentioned. And because we do believe we're sinners, and take the Lord's chastisements of the church seriously, we can easily accept the criticisms of atheists as is. But I think we shouldn't do that. In the case of Penn Jillette's words, it sounds like he's suggesting that the Gospel must not be true, because if it was, then Christians would be acting differently. Many Christians will reject that, but to some, and often the young especially, that sort of argument sounds good to them. "IF the Gospel is true, you Christians would be doing a lot more to save people," Jillette is saying, "You'd be rescuing them. That's what I would do if I was a Christian. I couldn't sit around while people were in such danger." I think that's a crafty way to combine some legitimate criticism with destructive criticism and even some lies (ultimately we ourselves can't save anyone - it's Jesus who performed the life-saving work - but they also have to recognize their need to be saved). I think the danger isn't in the legitimate criticism, but in the lies that are mixed in with it.