Adams vs God - the rematch

I've long enjoyed listening to Phillip Adams interview interesting people on his Australian ABC's Late Night Live program. Given that Adams is an avowed and somewhat evangelical atheist, this may seem strange. However, it is not, and I challenge any Christian with a truly open mind and a love for human kind to read or listen to him and not find something to enjoy or even love.

Yes, he will call you a 'God botherer', but I've been called far worse and lived! However, unlike his firend Richard Dawkins, he will treat you with respect, especially if you are as equally genuine in your beliefs as he is in his.

I've just read the introduction to his new edition of Adams Vs. God: The Rematch. This is a collection of essays from more than two decades of Adam's jounalism.

From my reading I gain the distinct impression that the sort of religion Adams is so appalled by, any genuine follower of Jesus would also reject, as I do. Let me indulge myself by quoting one passage, from pages xxiv and xxv:

One of the problems with religious upbringing, with childhood indoctrination, is that beliefs are rarely, if ever, tested. To a large extent, most true believers are not entitled to their beliefs because they're entirely unexamined. This is painfully apparent in the letters I receive from Christians. It matters little if they're aggressive or patronising - whether they threaten me with damnation or undertake to pray for me so that I'll be more quickly propelled down the road to Damascus. These correspondents have one thing in common. They know far less about Christianity than the atheist they're writing to. Theirs is a comfortable Sunday school Christianity. They remain in the kindergarten of faith knowing nothing of biblical scholarship, of the history of the Old Testament or the contradictions of the New.

Oddly, their ignorance of their professed faith makes them more confident, or at the very least more complacent. They're true believers in belief, blissfully unaware of the disagreements in the approved gospels let alone the existence of the gospels that were rejected. The essential difference between those who write to admonish and those who write to save is that some believe that every biblical word is holy and beyond challenge whereas others can see that perhaps Noah's ark will not be unearthed on Mount Ararat. But whether they've eaten the three-course meal of Christianity or have chosen to pick at the food, to go on a sort of religious diet and reject the high calories of virgin birth, bodily assumption and eternal damnation, their innocence (a kind word for their ignorance) is astonishing.

I've more sympathy with the unthinking than the half-hearted, whose low-cal version of faith often encroaches upon agnosticism or the turf of the atheist.

Of course, Adams isn't being original here. Jesus got there first in Revelation 3 with his admonition to the church in Laodicea.

Where twenty years ago Adams thought that religion was in its death throes, he now seems content to hope that it will simply become reduced to some sort of historical hobby. I think that even in this he is being wildly optimistic - the real Jesus is not going to go away. Neither are the opposing forces nor the fakes.

Of course, Adams does know more about Christianity than many Christians, but in common with many of them he also 'knows' and believes a lot about it that is erroneous. Having rejected God on logical grounds at the age of six, it is to be expected that he has not put himself in a position to encounter a great deal of the genuine article since then, but has certainly come across a lot of the sort of Christianity that would cause Jesus to roll over in his grave, in the unlikely event of anyone ever finding one that could hold him.

But Adams is a genuine believer in his own worldview, and if you'll excuse my use of an old cliche, this is one which takes a great deal more faith to hold on to than being a follower of a living person that one has actually met and conversed with.

Besides, according to Adams, and I believe him, we have him to thank for the formation of the Family First party, following the challenge he put to a group of Pentecostal leaders that Jesus was not at all conservative.

And even God was apparently impressed enough by him to strike his plane with lightning twice while flying over the Vatican. At least, that's Adam's interpretation of the event (surprising for an atheist, even if tongue in cheek). Personally I'd advocate a far different supernatural and more troublemaking source for those particular atmospheric volts and amps.

Phillip Adams might feel justified if he included me in his list of the patronising, if he bothered to think of me at all, but that is not how I feel towards him. Yes, I believe he is wrong about many things, but I would not try to change his thinking unless he asked me to. What I will do is to continue to enjoy listening to and reading a very erudite man, and recommend that you do also.

Are you in a Christendom political party?

Sad as it may seem, I believe that most Christians are told by their leaders which part of the theological spectrum they are part of, and generally they don't understand what it means, nor do they often care very much. Theology has been made to appear to them like an obscure, esoteric branch of philosophy that is beyond their reach and not very relevant to their lives anyway. As long as they dutifully subscribe to the party line then all will be well with their world. If they should question it too persistently then the accusations of backsliding will flow quickly and frighten them back into the loyal fold.

This is not unlike voting for a particular political party for the important reasons that your parents always did so, or 'everyone' in your town does, or your favourite TV commentator's disparaging comments about the other parties are the funniest or wittiest.

It also reminds me of the Middle Ages when, as long as the priest said the magic words of the Mass at one end of the parish church, the whole town could, at the same time, engage in the village market at the other end, and all was well, and God's wrath was appeased for another day. No-one actually had to take part in the rituals.

The sadnesses in this scenario are immediately obvious to me:

• That leaders who 'understand' theology would so easily use it as a means of control and self-agrandisement.
• That the average Christian should think so little of the need to actively engage in the discovery of who is this God they 'worship'.

Why is it that when the most important thing in all of our lives is the development of intimacy with Jesus, do we think it is OK to delegate this to someone else? And whose kingdom are we leaders really building? Are we for Paul, or Apollos, or Calvin, or Arminius, or Luther, or ..., or are we for Jesus?

Yes, theological movements do spring up for often good reasons. However, why are we generally so black and white about them? And why, once born, are such movements so hard to kill again? Was Jesus a Calvinist? Was he a dispensationalist? Was he Reformed? Charismatic? Was he even a Christian? (Now there's an oxymoron for you!)

As a Baptist pastor I am almost expected to be of a Reformed doctrinal persuasion. However, the more I learn about what it means to be an intimate follower of Jesus, and one of those favoutites that I'm told my Father God doesn't have, the more some of the tenets of Calvinism make me extremely uneasy. In particular, their implications for the nature and character of God make me shudder. No, I'm afraid that much I once might have admired about Calvin is long gone the way of many other long cherished doctrines and heroes - into the heresy bucket. If someone said about me some of the things some sincere and well-meaning Reformed theologians say about the nature of their God, I would be very upset - and rightly so!

Of course, bucking the status quo is not without cost. For example, I had been considering becoming an editor for Theopedia. However, when I read the statement of faith I would be expected to sign I could not in all conscience do so. Most of it is fine, but not all. This is rather disappointing, because it is a great project, but I guess I'll live. At least I won't be burnt at the stake or put down a hole and pelted with stones!

Lest you also think I am anti-intellectual, or anti-theology, nothing could be more untrue. I love learning, and have invested a large part of myself into theology. I love to teach, and have engaged fully in a career as an academic and researcher, but I am constained at all times to make sure I am teaching life, not death. There are many things in all of the 'isms' and 'ologies' that cause me disquiet, and even horror at times, so much so that I would rather be known as a follower of Jesus than be mis-recognised as one of what has become known today by the title of 'Christian'.

I'm sure I will write more about this, here and elsewhere.

The Dawkins Delusion

It's nice to have agreement in high places. Further to my article on atheism, Science proves God doesn't exist? , John Sexton at Verum Serum has posted the comments of Oxford University theologian and historian, Alister McGrath on Dawkin's The God Delusion. Since I am greatly enjoying McGrath's insights into atheism in The Twilight of Atheism: The Rise and Fall of Disbelief in the Modern World, I was greatly interested in John's post, so I will reproduce it here:

The Dawkins Delusion.
That’s the title of a new book by fellow Oxford professor (of theology) Alister McGrath. McGrath is a former atheist who, prior to pursuing theology, received a Phd in molecular biophysics. Here’s what he has to say about Dawkins:

I have known Dawkins for more than 20 years; we are both Oxford professors. I believe if anyone is “immune to argument” it is him. He comes across as a dogmatic, aggressive propagandist.

[snip]

Our paths do cross on the television networks and we even managed to spar briefly across a BBC sofa a few months back. We were also filmed having a debate for Dawkins’s recent Channel 4 programme, The Root Of All Evil? Dawkins outlined his main criticisms of God, and I offered answers to what were clearly exaggerations and misunderstandings. It was hardly rocket science.

[snip]

But when I debated these points with him, Dawkins seemed uncomfortable. I was not surprised to be told that my contribution was to be cut. The Root Of All Evil? was subsequently panned for its blatant unfairness. Where, the critics asked, was a responsible, informed Christian response to Dawkins? The answer: on the cutting-room floor.

That sounds about right. McGrath concludes that Dawkin’s legacy may be a backlash:

Aware of the moral obligation of a critic of religion to deal with this phenomenon at its best and most persuasive, many atheists have been disturbed by Dawkins’s crude stereotypes and seemingly pathological hostility towards religion. In fact, The God Delusion might turn out to be a monumental own goal - persuading people that atheism is just as intolerant as the worst that religion can offer.

I’ve learned (from speaking to atheists) that there are a significant number who do not find Dawkin’s approach at all appealing and who find his seeming compunction for self-aggrandizement even less appealing. In the end, Dawkins may be a jerk, but he’s their jerk. I can appreciate that.

Still, I predicted that celebrity atheism would lead to the same sort of problems and embarrassments associated with Christian televangelists. The first big scandal is probably still a few years away, but it’s coming. Dawkins has a lot more in common with Pat Robertson than he realizes.

Related Articles:
The New Atheists: Arrogant, Rigid and Charmless
Some Atheists Not Thrilled with the New Atheism
Dawkins' Faith in Foam
NY Times Reviews Dawkins' Delusion
Dawkins' Fawlty Idea

John's last paragraph accords with my own conclusion that Dawkins is a prize example of a (non-Christian) fundamentalist. And I agree - we haven't seen the end of the story yet!