God Delusion, Part 4: Morality

This is going to be, without a doubt, the most stressful week of my semester. I had one test today, have two more this week, my normal reading and homework levels, a major project due, two papers to write for next week, and two presentations to prepare for next week. Thankfully, after that, all I have to worry about is exams. So, here at the outset of this week, I wanted to make sure I took time to do something that relaxes me: reading and writing. The reading part, as you'll see, didn't relax me so much. Hopefully the writing part can help a little.

In talking about Richard Dawkins's book, I've touched on the 'sensitivity' with which we treat religion and why I think it's the case, the problem of Nominal Christianity and the dangers that come with it, and most recently, the fact that this book addresses notions of Christianity that I have problems with just as much as Dawkins does. In this, I haven't really gotten past the first couple chapters of the book, and I'm facing a problem. I'm well into the 7th chapter (275ish) and haven't really written on anything past page 50. I've either got a lot of catching up to do or a lot of stuff to leave behind. What I think I'm going to do is have a post dedicated just to what each chapter addresses and a couple key points or issues I see. That will get me caught up to where I am in the book and allow me to continue my 'rabbit trail' analysis of the book that has characterized my posts so far.

This is not that post. Tonight, I need to write about what I just read (and if you'll remember, did not at all relax me). Chapter 7 is titled 'The 'Good' Book and the Changing Moral Zeitgeist.' What I've read so far is an extremely selective, obviously biased bird's-eye-view of the Old Testament and an argument for why it does not serve as a model for our moral behavior. Dawkins suggests that the two ways scripture could be seen as a guide for moral behavior are as a list of explicit rules (such as the Ten Commandments) or pointing to examples, role models (Jesus, David, etc), of how to live a good life. On the surface, this seems like a reasonable statement. The Bible does have some rules and commandments in it, and it does have lots of stories about men and women that we can draw inspiration from. But, there is a problem with both of these conceptions of morality from scripture.

First, the role model category. Here is Dawkins's introduction to the patriarch, Abraham: "Lot's uncle Abraham was the founding father of all three 'great' monotheistic religions. His patriarchal status renders him only somewhat less likely than God to be taken as a role model. But what modern moralist would wish to follow him? (274)" At this point, I almost threw the book across the room. The very statement that Richard Dawkins intends to discredit Abraham is actually one of the fundamental points of covenant theology! He's right there, he's so close to the truth, and he can't see it! To me, this was the height of the book's misdirected, misleading arguments.

What do I mean that this is the starting point of covenant theology? Covenant theology looks at the Bible as the pattern of God's faithfulness to His chosen people (I touched on this a little bit yesterday with the Sunday hymn). One of the key points of this view of scripture is that we contribute nothing to our salvation. God is the one who initiates the plan of redemption in the wake of the fall, who passes through the animal halves in the covenant ceremony with Abraham (who actually sleeps through the whole thing), who calls His people out of Egypt, who sends Christ, and who will call His own out of the world. From Adam to Noah to Abraham to Moses to David to those in Christ, there is a pattern of covenant promises that God makes and keeps with His people.

With this view, it is no surprise that modern moralists would not want to emulate Abraham. Indeed, he was not chosen for this purpose. Rather, he was chosen by God precisely because there was no one else through whom God's grace would be seen more. Why did God call Paul to minister to the early church? Because there was no one else through whom God's transforming grace could be seen more. Why did he chose Israel? Because he knew there would be no nation more fickle, more wavering than them, and that thus, his faithfulness might be even more apparent. With an understanding of covenant theology, the Old Testament is transformed from a storybook of role models (who are undeniably screwed up) to a beautiful display of God's faithfulness in keeping His promises to His people regardless of their moral laxity. So we see that Dawkins's assessment of Biblical morality being based on role-model emulation is negated. These stories do not exhort us to be like the Biblical heroes: they call us to see God more clearly in the way He acts in spite of these heroes.

In addition, the legalistic notion of morality falls with this covenant theology. From the beginning, the Old Testament laws were not meant for a people to earn their election as God's chosen. God made the covenant with Abraham long before Moses received the law on Mount Siani. Instead, the law was given as a model for Israel's response to this miracle of election. Because the Law is reactionary, it is not inappropriate for us to talk about the spirit of the law. As Christ says, loving the Lord with all our heart, soul, and mind and loving our neighbor as ourselves is a fulfillment of all the law. When we understand the law as a guide to sanctification rather than our earning of salvation, it is clear that morality is not dictated through scripture by a list of rules.

Morality, for the Christian, should not be our efforts to earn salvation or to make ourselves look more like Biblical heroes such as David or Abraham or Moses. Rather, our morality, our striving for right, is to always be a reaction to God's glory as displayed in our salvation.

As I said at the beginning, this statement, this representation of the Old Testament, enraged me. And it's not the only one in this chapter. I've tried to stay away from encouraging you (whoever you are) to encourage others to read this blog, but I'm going to make a minor exception here. If you know someone who is reading this book, Christian or not, please talk to them about it. Whether that means reading it yourself, pointing them to other Christians who have read it, or pointing them my direction, make sure they talk to someone about this book. There are very real misrepresentations of scripture, especially in this chapter, and it would be a great tragedy if Dawkins's misunderstanding of scripture led others to reject its truth.

And on a lighter not, since we're talking about morality and virtue, here's one of my favorite Calvin and Hobbes strips (it and The Far Side are my two favorite comics).