I feel like I should start with a disclaimer. If you've read this blog at all in the past 18 months you already know about my penchant for irreverent humor. I happen to believe there are very few sacred cows. A few years ago Beth gave me a stone paperweight that has the word "Question" engraved on it. If I knew a stonecutter I would be inclined to add "and poke fun." It's not that I don't find value in the sacred and divine. I just happen to think I am closest to living into my promise of being created in God's image when I question and do so with a bit of humor.
This semester I am taking a class called Dangerous Religious Ideas. Despite what you may think, it isn't about liturgical dance and handbell choirs. In our first class of the semester we determined that religion is like fire. It can be used constructively and destructively. I agree and if you think about religion throughout history and even how it is used today, that statement is pretty darn true.
One of our assignments was to read a book by one of the new atheists and write a sermon or response paper. The key criteria for the paper was that it couldn't have "an edge." There are plenty book reviews, sermons and critiques that lambast these books for faulty logic, heresy and bad theology. Our assignment was to rise above that and write a paper that moves forward the religious dialog. These books often become bestsellers. Most likely that isn't because there are hundreds of thousands of atheists roaming around and looking for their next sacred text. People in our faith communities buy these books and we need to be prepared to have conversations.
Some people have asked that I post my paper and this seems like a good space to do so. I will warn that if you are one of my "Jesus is the only way" friends, I will probably disappoint you. Jesus happens to be my way but I don't believe he is the only way. Write a response to me--I would love to hear you. That's the point. Let's stay in conversation about things. Too often we shut down the dialog once we find some point of disagreement. It is much more comfortable to "preach to the choir" and have them sing back. I believe we have too many choir festivals and not nearly enough edifying debates.
The really cool thing about my faith is that it moves and changes and grows. In fact, I have a few songs that I listen to over and over again in order to get into a prayerful space. One of my favorites is by the group FFH called "Lord, Move or Move Me. So this is where I am today. I promise to write more as I move and change and grow.
So The Atheists May Have A Point
Most of my reading happens while I take public transportation. As I make my way on the train from the southern suburb where I live into the city where I work, I read. A lot of commuters read; there’s nothing shocking about that. As we settle in for the commute, we open our bags, pull out our books and papers and settle into 40 minutes of mostly uninterrupted reading time. I notice those around me pouring over their well-worn Bibles, their sports sections or trashy romance novels. And for the most part, I take note of what they’re reading and try not to judge. Okay, let’s be honest, I do raise an eyebrow at the trashy romance novels. In the small space of a train car, you inevitably notice what those around you are reading.
I was a little shocked at my internal reaction as I read Sam Harris’ book entitled “The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason.” Sam Harris is considered one of the new atheists and it felt like maybe I needed to wrap the cover of his book in brown paper. It felt almost as shameful as if I were reading porn.
Quite a few of my friends ride the train at the same time I do. These friends know that I am attending seminary. They know of my involvement with church. What would they think about me reading a book that espouses atheistic ideas?
I opened the cover of the book, scanned the table of contents and mentally prepared my counter-attack. I knew that Mr. Harris would set out to prove my faith unreasonable, unintelligent and corrupt. I steeled myself for this challenge and set about reading his book.
As I anticipated, Mr. Harris to laid out his argument against any type of faith in the Divine. Systematically he assailed each of the “religions of the Book”—Judaism, Christianity and Islam. He waxed on about the faulty logic of believing in something without evidence for its existence. He spent a long chapter detailing the horrific acts committed in the name of religion: the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Holocaust and September 11. For seven complete pages he listed a compilation of quotes in the Quran that call for violence against non-Muslims. He said and I quote, “Words like “God” and “Allah” must go the way of “Apollo” and “Baal” or they will unmake our world.” He then goes on to say “There is no more evidence to justify a belief in the literal existence of Yahweh and Satan than there was to keep Zeus perched upon his mountain throne or Poseidon churning the seas.”
I felt my ire raise. My defensiveness was fully engaged! Harris acknowledges that “Criticizing a person’s ideas about God and the afterlife is thought to be impolitic in a way that criticizing his ideas about physics or history is not.”
Then I began to wonder why my faith could not withstand the same questioning as my history or science? As soon as I began to allow that Mr. Harris had some provocative questions, my defenses came down and I noticed that the atheist indeed makes a lot of good points. Since I don’t want you to spend the rest of this sermon praying for my eternal soul, I will tell you how this ends. After working through this book, my faith in God remains intact, I continue to be a devoted follower of Jesus Christ AND I concur with many of the things that Sam Harris, the atheist, suggests.
The author asks us to “Imagine that we revive a well-educated Christian of the fourteenth century. This man would prove to be a total ignoramus, except on the matters of faith. His beliefs about geography, astronomy, and medicine would embarrass even a child, but he would know more or less everything there is to know about God.”
This year is the 400th anniversary of the King James translation of the Bible. Most biblical scholars believe that the King James Version is no longer the most accurate translation of the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. Over the course of the last 400 years, there have been tremendous advances in textual criticism, archaeological discoveries and understanding the culture of the Ancient Near East. Yet, take a poll of Christians and there will still be many people who claim that the King James Version is the only, true word of God. These are the same people who say that the Bible hasn’t changed in 4,000 years and neither should we. Not to steal the tagline of the United Church of Christ but I believe that God is still speaking to us with these academic discoveries. As we know more about the language, the culture and the context, we enlarge our vision and understanding of God.
Sam Harris is absolutely correct when he writes, “A truly rational approach to this dimension of our lives would allow us to explore the heights of our subjectivity with an open mind, while shedding the provincialism and dogmatism of our religious traditions in favor or free and rigorous inquiry.” Are we afraid that God cannot withstand our questions? Are we worried that God will respond to us as God responded to Job? “I am God and you are not.” Had God wanted unquestioning and unthinking loyalty, I do not believe we would have been given the gift of curiosity. Faith does not require us to mark a door of inquiry “Do Not Enter.” Like the fields of geography, science and medicine, we must make allowances for new knowledge and new understanding of God as God’s way of communicating with us today.
Chapter three was particularly difficult for me to read. To be honest, I have not studied much about the medieval church, the Crusades nor the Inquisition. It is more my speed to talk about building our church attendance through coffee hours, youth athletics and excellence in music. As a church we do not spend a lot of time talking about the less savory ways people were converted in our past. Harris was not afraid to list each gory detail.
I am fairly certain that if I stood up and described a philosophy or group of people, who demanded barbaric torture and murder, we all would be looking for ways to protest and picket. We would demand that our government and military get involved to root out this horrible way of thinking. It is tough to reconcile that Jesus’ message of love and forgiveness could be distorted into a mandate to maim, murder and torture.
But it happened. Justification for the acts of burning, splitting, disemboweling, crushing, maiming and murdering was found in the scriptures. My natural inclination was to think that Sam Harris had just pulled the worst examples of religious behavior. What about the good we have done? What about caring for the poor, the widows and orphans? What about the beatitudes? Every philosophy has its ugly spots. What about the good? Even Harris admits “the help rendered to the poor by Christian missionaries in the developing world demonstrates that religious ideas can lead to actions that are both beautiful and necessary.” On the other hand, “By contrast, the most monstrous crimes against humanity have invariably been inspired by unjustified belief.”
The United States has a reprehensible history of slavery, racism, internment camps and reservations. This doesn’t mean that we throw out every ideal of this country. A sordid past doesn’t necessarily dictate dissolution. It does however require that we remind ourselves of our past [and current] capacity for evil and test our resolve against the indignation we feel for the ancestors of our faith tradition.
What do we do to keep people away from church and faith? How do we make things so uncomfortable that conversion is the only viable option? How do we use false accusations and half-truths to guide our behavior?
If we are honest, we needn’t look far to find our own examples. It may not be unimaginable physical torture but our standards must be higher than “not as bad as the Crusades.”
Thankfully we no longer believe that the Jews are responsible for killing Jesus. But I know a couple who in 1985 were denied entrance into an non-religious adoption program solely because they are Jewish. What about our past beliefs dictate this type of thinking now? Whether or not we agree with a person’s politics, we should not be discussing their fitness for office based on their Mormon beliefs. Last weekend a young friend of mine was celebrating the unseasonably warm weather by driving with the sunroof open and the windows down. As college kids are prone to do she blasted the new music a friend had just given to her. The language spoken in the lyrics was Arabic. A carload of angry young men approached my very blonde, very WASP-y friend and berated her for being a terrorist. What about our rhetoric makes this behavior acceptable? No, we don’t sanction torture but we are a long way from where we need to be.
Finally, what about our faith mandates that we shouldn’t be open to other ideas? In my reticence to read an atheist’s ideas in a public setting, I realized that I am the person author Sam Harris describes when he says that people of faith are not open to other opinions. Why shouldn’t I read a book critiquing my faith?
I love baseball. I am also a White Sox fan, which means my dreaded enemy should be the Cubs. If there were a game between the two, of course I would cheer for the Sox. But I am not that fan who boos the other team. You see, I love the game and I love when it is masterfully played. This means that I can celebrate when the other team does well. I am a fan of baseball. I realize that this is a simplistic and rather pedestrian metaphor for pluralism. But I cannot hate or even fail to celebrate a person of God’s creation. Harris is mostly correct when he says that “The central tenet of every religious tradition is that all others are mere repositories of error or, at best, dangerously incomplete.” It is that thinking that led to oppression of Jews. It is that thinking that led to radical Islam’s war on non-believers. It is that thinking which led to the evils perpetrated in the name of God. That cannot be my central tenet. We read our religious text and have faith that God speaks to us through it. It is arrogant to think that God only speaks through my religious text and only to me. That it is right for me doesn’t inherently make it right for others.
Perhaps you have noticed that until this point I did not quote any scripture in this sermon. Far too often we pull out quotes or passages that prove our point. Frankly, we can substantiate almost any point with an “out of context” or a misunderstood reading of our sacred text. Let us look at the overall message of the Bible. Consider the teaching in the Gospels. Focus on the theme. For I believe as Sam Harris believes that “A belief is a lever that, once pulled, moves almost everything else in a person’s life.”
So God created humankind in God’s image…(Gen 1:27 NRSV). This means that Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and all atheists were created in God’s image. I may reach a separate conclusion than they do when presented with the same arguments. But, I am mindful that my faith, my intellect, my logic is no more so God’s than is theirs.