God Delusion, Part 3: Audience

As I get further and further into The God Delusion, I become more and more convinced that this book is not addressed to me. Dawkins attacks Christian beliefs without specifically addressing Christians, yet I get the sense that he hopes Christians will read this book. Because of the way he structures his arguments and the way he characterizes Christians, I can only conclude that this book is written to non-Christians with the hope of shoring up their beliefs and giving them questions to challenge Christians with. There are portions, however, where he gets so caught up in his arguments that I suspect he is thinking "if only Christians would read this, they'd see how ridiculous their beliefs are and turn away from the church in a heartbeat." But whether we're talking about his audience in voice (non-Christians) or his audience in hope (Christians who won't read it), I still don't think the book is addressed to me.

Doesn't that statement contradict itself? The book is either addressed to non-Christians or Christians. You have to be one of those, right? Those two groups are both mutually exclusive (can't belong to both) and population encompassing (everyone falls into one of those categories). But the 'brand' of Christianity that Dawkins is addressing is not my own. Sure, there are some things that apply to me: miracles, virgin birth, the effectiveness of prayer, morality, etc. But these interactions are more of the 'bump into' sort rather than the 'rush headlong at full speed' type. Overall, the details of Christianity that Dawkins deals with are not characteristic of what I believe.

Dawkins has mainstream Christianity in his sights: bumper stickers and Pat Robertson, Christian legislation groups and elementary school t-shirts, Joel Osteenian Christianity (pray for a parking space pg. 84) and Watchtower Publications. These are the sources Dawkins draws upon for the Christian viewpoints that he is addressing (I say this rather than arguing or debating because this brand of Christianity is frustratingly resistant to conversation and discussion). Nowhere in the 250 pages that I've read so far does he deal with the kind of Christianity that I support and embrace. John Calvin, John Stott, John Piper, J. I. Packer, Tim Keller, Jerry Bridges, and so many more of my favorite authors and theologians are never even mentioned. And believe me, it's not for lack of material from these writers. John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion is enormous, not to mention the many commentaries that Stott has published, the books that the rest of them write, or the sermons they preach.

What is the difference? If he's attacking Christianity, aren't I included in that even if I don't necessarily agree with everything that others preach? I would suggest that there is a fundamental difference between Reformed Christianity (what I embrace) and the mainstream Christianity that is the source of so much antagonism (purposefully ambiguous: they both give and receive plenty). If that difference were something like the nature of communion or the practice of speaking in tongues, that would not merit the gap I see between the two. But, as I am convinced, the rift starts at square one, and thus, when you get to details of belief and practice, the rift has grown wider than the Grand Canyon.

The difference I see is this: Reformed Christianity (and this is not to say that all who call themselves reformed do this, or that none who don't see themselves as reformed don't) starts with God's glory. Soli deo gloria. God is seen as glorious, holy, righteous, just, merciful, loving, good, and so much more (see J. I. Packer's wonderful book, Knowing God). Our life, our culture, our relationships, everything, are therefore to be interpreted in light of the fact that God is (YHWH) and that we are made in His image. It comes with the conviction that He is at work on behalf of His people, the true children of Abraham (those who are children of faith). That God is faithful to His Word and His covenant promises.

I'm not trying to say that other kinds of Christianity aren't concerned with God's glory, just that they don't start there. Social justice, evangelism, marriage counseling, etc, are all good and worthy pursuits, but if they don't stem from an appreciation of God, they are headed in the wrong direction. Moreover, we tend to misconstrue the gospel if we start with ourselves. Works as an overflowing of gratitude will lead to legalism, grace will lead to indulgence. But when our sights are set on God, our deviations from our course are easily corrected.

Once again, I haven't really talked about The God Delusion (if you really wanna know what's in it, read it for yourself). And honestly, I don't feel like I explained myself real well here. I feel like I was elitist and snobbish. I fear that someone will read it and think that, because they aren't 'reformed', I think they aren't really a Christian. That's not at all the case. But, this is my explanation of the discrepancy I see between Dawkins's targeted Christianity and mine, and I think that it holds real weight. If God is all that He claims to be, where else can we start?