God Delusion, Part 2: Hot Potato

I'm not really sure how to do this. I have a lot to say about Dawkins's book, but there isn't any easy was to organize everything I have to say, at least in my mind. The chapters are too long to be addressed in a single post, and the subsections are too short and too numerous to merit a post each. I'm going to have to do some trimming. With that, and if you are reading the book, understand that just because something doesn't show up here, that doesn't mean I agree with it or have nothing to say about it. I just think that some things are more important to address than others. Here goes.

Chapter One is called 'A Deeply Religious Non-Believer.' It's basically the introduction for the book. Dawkins describes his own view point and addresses how he is going to treat and address religion. "I shall not go out of my way to offend, but nor shall I don kid gloves to handle religion any more gently than I would handle anything else" is his concluding statement. His observation is that religious sentiments, unlike political leanings or musical preference, aren't touched by anything short of a '39 1/2 foot pole.' And he's right: unless we're talking about Christianity, religious commentary and criticism is a thing unheard of and frowned upon.

One of my problems with Dawkins, not just in this chapter but in the rest of the book (as far as I've read), is that he will often make some social observation but spend no time or ink trying to figure out why it is true. Example: avoidance of religion. Let me offer my own solution to this observation. Religion deals with the infinite and the sublime. The afterlife, true reality, the nature of our soul, redemption, and eternity are all at stake when we discuss religion. But with politics? Of what import is the running of a country in comparison to 'forever and ever?' Music and arts? What does it matter which music you like best in comparison with the claim that God has made it possible for us to worship Him forever? Religion is avoided because eternity is at stake, not because of some unexplainable sense of respect for the worldviews of others.

Why, then, has it become socially acceptable to poke fun at and ridicule Christians? I would argue that, as a whole, the American Church has lost the focus of the Gospel. Christianity, for many, means 'Your Best Life Now' or simply what you do on Sunday mornings. The Gospel is interpreted in light of our lives, not the other way around. Because the message of the Gospel has been diluted to human terms rather than marveled at because of it's divine nature, there is less at stake. Eternity is no longer the focus: retirement is. Furthermore, we flaunt our religiosity without any thought to whether or not that expression is morally right or beneficial. Dawkins provides an example of this, but it's given in light of the relationship of church and state, freedom of religion, not in the context of Christians being Bible-thumpers or intolerant social critics (just in case someone accuses me of taking his example out of context).

"... In 2004 James Nixon, a twelve-year-old boy in Ohio, won the right in court to wear a T-shirt to school bearing the words 'Homosexuality is a sin, Islam is a lie, abortion is murder. Some issues are just black and white!' The school told him not to wear the T-shirt - and the boy's parents sued the school. (45, Mariner Books edition, 2008)" Putting aside the claims made by the shirt, what is the attitude of the shirt itself? Love doesn't even come close, even though Christ's second commandment is to love your neighbor as yourself. In this world of gated communities and country clubs, it's understandable that neighbor has taken on a meaning more like 'someone living near you, who just so happens to look like you talk like you and think like you.' But what does Christ mean by neighbor? Well, he illustrates by a story. The parable of the Good Samaritan is what follows (Luke 11:25-37). The injured man (probably understood to be Jewish by those listening) isn't helped by his brothers, but by a foreigner: a half-breed (that's what the Samaritans were: half-Jews). It is clear that this 'half-breed' is the man's neighbor. What does that mean for us? Our neighbors are who ever we come into contact with.

Next, I want to look at the statement 'Some issues are just black and white.' Again, ignoring the claims of the shirt, what is the attitude? Inviting doesn't even come close. This pushes away anyone with dissenting views by refusing to listen, effectively killing any possibility of relationships with non-believers. And with all due respect to Crusades and altar calls, in my opinion, real conversion and real growth happens through relationships. When others see our love and our good deeds, it should cause them to glorify our Father in heaven (1 Peter 2:12) If we're not even in relationships with non-believers because we give off such an air of arrogance and unflinching dedication to what we believe, how can we hope to obey Christ when he tells us to 'go and make disciples of all the nations? (Matthew 28:19)'

These two issues are related (and more than just by the T-shirt). If we truly love others and desire the best for them, we will, in our relationships with them, act in such a way to point them to Christ. Whether or not they eventually gaze on the face of Christ rests in our Father's hands, but the call to us is to at least give them an opportunity to see it. This does not, by any means, suggest that we befriend non-believers in order to save them: there's nothing worse than feeling like a project. But rather, because we live our lives in love and service, others are attracted to the Gospel. God uses the church, collectively and individually, as broken and fickle as it is, not only to encourage the community of believers, but to reach out and impact the community that surrounds it.