Dickie Dawkins etc.

After the reference section (Bible, Hebrew Bible and Dictionary) of my bookshelf lies a copy of Richard Dawkins’ work ‘The God Delusion’ – in pole position, one might say. Yet while its placement as such is entirely the result of my categorisation strategy and not a desire to hold him above some of the genuine heavyweights of historical and contemporary Theology, I can’t help but feel he’s a rather good thing.

Lots of Christians spend lots of time slagging Dawkins off – indeed, with good reason; Dawkins’ understanding of Christian Theology is wildly simplistic, and shows a total lack of engagement with most of the classic pieces of Christian biblical interpretation and Theology. But something came to me last night: I a fortunate enough to know a tiny amount of the rich heritage of the Christian tradition and its Theology (which does, literally, mean ‘talk about God’), and so can see the simplicity of Dawkins’ work, but a lot of Christians don’t know some of the most central theological things written by the Church’s great authors.

I came across a wonderful example of this on Thursday this week, yet again in a brilliant module I am fortunate enough to take. We spoke briefly about Thomas Aquinas’ understanding of God being not a ‘thing’ like other things in the universe, and the difficulty of much biblical language speaking of God in very anthropomorphic (ie, human) terms, having conversations with people and doing things and using human words in the manner of a big human from up above. How to reconcile this with a view of God as NOT a ‘thing’ in the universe, but, as Nicholas Lash says, the mystery of existence which we may speak about but never tie down, is a big issue.

I think Dawkins is a remarkably naïve writer because of his overly simplistic view of God and Theology, and I also think that the God he rejects is the God of many Christians, who also operate on a similar understanding. I feel very uncomfortable being patronising to the faith of many, which is deeply-held, profoundly liberating and life-giving – that is certainly not my intention. I think my problem is with some of the leaders of some churches, who largely are not interested in these great works and ideas, such that they may not be passed on to those to whom they minister. There’s a lot of emphasis on leaders engaging their congregation’s hearts and emotions (which is no bad thing), and not a lot on engaging their heads and really encouraging them to think about some of these big issues about the nature of God. If that were the case, I think Christian leaders and those to whom they are accountable could give Dawkins a far better ride than the ‘well he’s an atheist so I don’t take him seriously’ one finds quite often.

--

I think qualifying this post is a little important. I am fortunate enough to be paid to study some of the classic works of Theology full-time, and when writing things like this it is easy to drift into ‘it’d all be so much better if all Christians were like me’ mode. That really is not my intention. Of course, I think that Christians should get past the idea that Rob Bell is the most radical theologian ever to have written anything, and would benefit massively from reading some Augustine or Rashi or Aquinas – but I acknowledge that time is short and life busy, often filled with other profoundly liberating and worthwhile practises which my life lacks; for sure, I also have plenty to learn from those whose emphasis lies elsewhere. Yet I do challenge church leaders’ lack of engagement with their rich heritage, which fails to offer the intellectual stimulation and theological brilliance that Dawkins’ simplistic account also misses.

Interestingly, the work of perhaps the greatest Rabbi (Rashi) is available here. You have to negotiate to find the chapter a bit, and then click to add the commentary to the translation – but it’s well worth it ☺.