Dawkins is right! His god does not exist

Richard Dawkins does not believe this god exists:

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” (Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, page 51)

“Come to think of it, I don’t believe in a God like that either. In fact, I don’t know anybody who does.” (Alister McGrath, The Dawkins Deslusion?, page 75)

Sometimes I feel like I'm standing in the middle of a battlefield, taking hits from opposing armies on either side. Because of my non-literal interpretations of Genesis, my Christian friends aim their artillery at my “liberal” view of Scripture. They worry that I have abandoned the true faith. Meanwhile, many of my skeptic friends, with whom I interact in cyberspace lob bombs at an easy target, the Christian God, as they perceive him. And their perception often matches that of Richard Dawkins.

My response to Dawkins is much like that of Alister McGrath: thankfully, such a god as Dawkins imagines does not exist! But can such a god be found in the pages of the Old Testament? Well, that is a little more difficult to deny.

First, to my atheist friends, I must make this point clear. Christians do not worship two god’s, the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New. We worship one God, who declares about himself that he is unchanging. How we harmonize the Old Testament divine descriptions with those in the New Testament involves the science of hermeneutics. I summarized some of my own hermeneutic principles in a post on Progressive Revelation. In today’s post, I wish to elaborate on that earlier one.

The Bible reads like an unfolding revelation of God. Like a Polaroid picture (children, ask your parents what that is), the image of God becomes clearer and clearer with the passage of time. The more focused and accurate image of God does not fully emerge until Jesus reveals the Father, and the New Testament witness to his coming is compete. Click on the following video for a brief overview of my views on Progressive Revelation:

          

This overview details how faith relates to revelation, and how growing faith relates to growing revelation, and understanding. It also highlights, chronologically, four Biblical authors: Moses, David, Isaiah, and John. The God I have come to know as my Lord is more clearly understood and described by John than by Isaiah. But Isaiah provides a more focused picture than does David. And David gives a more accurate rendering of the Father than does Moses. And Moses gave us a clearer, far more accurate rendering of God than did the competing theologies from the pagan cultures of his day. Each new revelation builds upon prior revelation. The ultimate “Word” or “exegesis” of God is to be found in Jesus himself (John 1:1-18).

God reveals himself to man, not in categorical declarations, not in systematic dissertations, but in relationship. As an ancient people, the descendants of Abraham, began to pursue relationship with the one true and living God, he responded. He then began, through a growing relationship, to dismantle the false theological concepts of their neighboring cultures, and to replace those corrupted images with a more correct one, that of a monotheistic, providential, creator God. Did Moses get it all the details right? No. But God knew that faith would grow upon the earth, and with it, a deepening relationship with his children, and more profound appreciation of his character, leading to a clearer understanding of himself.

The Bible represents God as one who desires to reveal himself to man. It is a longing of his heart. But the Bible is clear about this: he reveals himself primarily within the context of relationship (see 2 Chronicles 16:9, Psalm 25:14, Proverbs 3:32, John 14:21).

Paul teaches us that all Scripture is inspired, and it is all useful. (2 Timothy 3:16). For me, this means that God inspired his people to keep a developing journal of relationship (even though in its early stages the picture was not always perfect). Thus, he inspired Moses to record what he was learning, and each subsequent author to do likewise. And the result is the Bible, a growing, living journal of God relating to man, opening his heart to man, and revealing himself to man. In stages. In steps, even if at times those steps were halting and imperfect.

I am thankful for Moses. By his faithful obedience, he brought man significant new understandings about God. When compared to the other Ancient Near Eastern god-concepts, his was clearly on the right track, a track that ultimately leads us to Jesus.

Yes, Moses portrays a God who is on occasion angry, rash, and seemingly capricious, given to warfare. If the language of Dawkins in the above quote is a bit over-the-top, it is not entirely inaccurate. But if Dawkins would keep reading, he would see the Polaroid image develop before his very eyes. And he would find that the God of the Apostle John (the last of the Biblical authors) bears no resemblance to his caricature. But John would have never seen this wonderful loving Father without the help of Moses, David, Isaiah, and all the other faith-filled pursuers of God to whom the Father revealed himself progressively.

To my Christian friends, who may be startled at my ready admission of theological inaccuracies in the Bible, I will respond with a positive statement of my belief in the Bible:

I believe that the Bible is a unique book, inspired from Genesis to Revelation. I believe it is the very book God wanted us to have. I hold to the authority of the Scriptures in matters of faith and practice. I believe the Bible provides a solid and dependable foundation for Christian living. I read it. I study it. I love it. I teach it. I find that it is “useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16). I believe all the Scriptures are infallible. Infallibility, as I use the term, means that the Bible, in its totality, does not mislead on issues of faith and practice, though it may not be without error in all respects. In my years of reading and studying the Bible, this view is more consistent with the Scriptures themselves than what I consider a forced claim of inerrancy.

I believe that in the process of inspiration, God did not override any author’s memory or knowledge base. [Paul, writing the inspired book of 1 Corinthians, included a little misinformation, then corrected himself, then said he was uncertain because he could not remember (1:14-16); the variations in the reporting of events during the life of Jesus which are found in the Gospels are best understood as resulting from inexact recall of events]. It was not God’s intention to produce a supernaturally perfect book. Many have wondered why it is that the leader of the Christian faith, Jesus himself, never wrote a book. The answer is quite simple for me. If Jesus had a written a book, the church would have fallen into worship of that book. It would be venerated. It would be legalistically applied. God has chosen not to give us “the perfect book” because our faith is not about words on a page, but about a growing, dynamic relationship with the Lord of the Universe! However, the Bible does give a faithful and accurate account of this growing relationship with God from Abraham through John, the Apostle.

Book Review: Exploring Reality

Reality: is anyone as well equipped to tackle such an all-encompassing subject as John Polkinghorne? Following a 25 year run as an accomplished particle physicist, Polkinghorne studied theology and became a priest in the Church of England. A result of this somewhat unique bi-vocational career is that Polkinghorne has become perhaps the most prolific writer on the intersection of faith and science. In Exploring Reality, (Yale University Press, 2005) Polkinghorne alternates between physical and metaphysical approaches to his subject matter. In this interweaving of hard science with the “softer” realms of theology, Polkinghorne has given us an engaging introduction to his view of reality.

Regular readers of Polkinghorne will find familiar discussions of subjects like quantum mechanics, relativity, evolution, and how these speak to questions of ultimate reality. For me, however, the value of the book was in Polkinghorne’s forays into such subjects as the trinity, evil, the historical Jesus and the nature of time.

Though I use a different path, I find common conclusions to the theodicy question in the writings of Polkinghorne. In the chapter titled “Evil”, Polkinghorne summarizes his “free process theology” approach to the problem of evil (page 144):

A theologian would say that what is involved in the occurring costliness of creation is the divine permissive will, allowing creatures to behave in accordance with their natures. Bringing the world into being was a kenotic act of self-limitation on the Creator's part, so that not all that happens does so under tight divine control. The gift of Love in allowing the genuinely other to be is necessarily a precarious gift. I believe that God wills neither the act of a murderer nor the incidence of an earthquake, but both are allowed to happen in a creation given its creaturely freedom.

A central theme in Polkinghorne’s thinking about evil and suffering is found in the concluding paragraph of the chapter: God himself enters into the suffering of this cosmos (page 146):

The Christian God is the crucified God, not a compassionate spectator from the outside, but truly a fellow sufferer who understands creatures’ pain from the inside.

By far my favorite chapter, “The Nature of Time: Unfolding Story” outlines Polkinghorne’s understanding of the dimension of time. He notes with apparent approval that openness is becoming increasingly accepted. Polkinghorne’s makes clear his “openness” to openness (page 119):

It would be no defect in the divine perfection not to know the details of the future if that future is not yet in existence and available to be known.

Open Theism is a subject we will explore here at OutsideTheBox in the future. So I was very interested in Polkinghorne’s stated position. Other topics under the general subject of time include progressive revelation (which Polkinghorne sees as continuing to the present), the relationship of entropy to the resurrected body of Christ, and time’s continuance in the new creation. Polkinghorne departs from conventional evangelical theology when he declares on page 125,

The life of the new creation will be a temporal life, lived within the unfolding ‘time’ of that world to come, whose everlasting nature is the true meaning of the fullness of times.

In short, Polkinghorne questions the common thinking that “eternity” is outside the bounds of time, and that God lives outside of time. Since I have long been asking the same questions, it was gratifying to read Polkinghorne’s thoughtful comments about time.

An elementary understanding of science is helpful in reading Polkinghorne. However, this book is a collection of free-standing essays. And the chapters on theology can be read on their own. For those who are inclined to think outside the box, I recommend you pick up a copy of Exploring Reality.

... Continued ... IS GOD GOOD?

Background: A reader, Jac, noted an inconsistency in Post #8 in which I tested four standard Christian Theodicies against a set of defined criteria. One of these criteria was that “a working theodicy must result in an omnipotent, compassionate God with his honor and integrity firmly intact in the face of a cosmos brimming with evil.” Jac’s question, very simply stated was this: how could I insist that a viable theodicy must uphold the honor of a “compassionate” God when so many Old Testament stories cast him in a light that is far from compassionate (as we might define compassion). Jac wrote, “By society’s definition of compassionate, many would consider the God of Exodus 11 and other Old Testament passages to be no different than your baby killing Nazi.” Jac cited the killing of firstborn sons in Egypt (Exodus 11:4-6), the slaying of innocent children in the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the drowning of innocent children in the flood of Noah. So the question has been raised. And before we move forward to suggest an alternative theodicy, we must return to reexamine the very presumptions of theodicy. Is God good? Is he compassionate? Do we define compassion in the same way he does?

Readers Comments: Several readers wrote comments suggesting ways in which this dilemma might be viewed.

Jac suggested that these O.T. stories portraying God as an apparently uncaring child slayer are troubling to believers, and are often “insurmountable barriers to the skeptic.” He sees them as irresolvable, and suggests that I ought to be more tentative in my dismissal of the free will/free process theology theodicy. He argues in favor of that theodicy, and contributed this C.S. Lewis quote (from Mere Christianity): “If God thinks this state of war in the universe a price worth paying for free will--that is, for making a live world in which creatures can do real good or harm and something of real importance can happen, instead of a toy world which only moves when He pulls the strings--then we may take it it is worth paying.”

Steve Martin suggests that the answer might lie in the concept of progressive revelation. His explanation seems to me to be two-pronged. Either the revelation is accurate, but God accommodated the infant state of man’s faith in his actual dealings with man, or the recounting of the stories is a little fuzzy, representing a less-than-accurate view of what God did and why. This concept would suggest that the true character of God comes into clearer focus as we progress through the ages of written revelation. Jac concurs that this must be part of our approach when he writes, “I agree with the concept of progressive revelation – we definitely understand God better now that we did before.”

Timothy takes a similar tack and writes, “When we look at historical accounts from the old testament scripture, it would seem to me that we are watching a God who is some how engaged in the affairs of man on a different level then we have experienced in the last couple thousand years of recorded history.” He expands on this idea, suggesting that we assign greater weight to later revelation. Early revelations concerning God's character, Timothy contends, may be tainted by the authors imperfect understanding of God. The authors might be giving what amounts to an inspired, but nevertheless human, rendition of the interactions of God and man; but their writings would not necessarily represent the final word on God's nature.

About himself, God declares “I do not change” (Malachi 3:6). The loving, kind, good God that Jesus came to show us is the God of Creation, the God of Moses, the God of the Old Testament. My own solution to Jac’s dilemma (which I will elucidate in greater detail later) is found in progressive revelation. It is a subject to which I will necessarily return, and which will involve a major discussion of Biblical interpretation and inspiration.

My Conclusion: I must agree with Jac’s central objection to the way in which I discounted the free will argument of theodicy as not upholding the compassionate character of God. Considering the stature of those who have forwarded the free will / free process theology argument (Lewis, Guinness, Polkinghorne, many others), I may have oversold my somewhat cavalier dismissal of it. Nevertheless, my argument is unchanged: this theodicy fails to satisfy the skeptic, it fails to satisfy most believers, and it fails to satisfy even its own proponents. So the quest for a better theodicy continues. I will suggest my own approach to the problem of evil in my next post.

POST #3: Principles of Revelation: Progressive Revelation

In this post and the previous post, I am laying the groundwork for discussions that will follow by defining an epistemology, that is, a set of governing principles for how we arrive at knowledge. I have established the place of Special Revelation, particularly the written revelation of the Old and New Testaments. These Scriptures are our authority for all matters of faith and practice. They must be the arbiter of all Christian understandings about God.

I have defined General Revelation in somewhat broader terms than are typically used. It is my conviction that we can learn much about the Creator by studying his Creation. The cosmos offers a wealth of information which may furnish clues to his character and purpose. In addition, there is a strong linkage between the state of scientific knowledge in any given era of the church, and the theological understandings of that era. Thus, science can and does influence theology. But the church has typically lagged behind science, at times taking hundreds of years before adjusting its thinking to align theology with the more accurate understandings about the Universe. It is my contention that much of evangelical Christianity is dwelling in just such a time lag today.

We now turn our attention to Progressive Revelation.

When I first was taught the principle of Progressive Revelation, the extent of its application was limited to written revelation. I learned that later Scriptures built upon, expanded upon, and expounded upon earlier Scriptures. This can be seen readily as we read through the Bible, beginning to end. Moses lays a foundation for David. Isaiah builds upon David. By the time John wrote, he had the benefit of all of the Hebrew Scriptures and many already extant New Testament writings. Our understandings of God, his character, his purpose, his involvement in the earth grow with each new portion of revealed truth. Progressive, when used in this sense, is defined as “developing gradually or in stages; proceeding step by step”. Progressive Revelation, understood in this way, is widely accepted and taught. Controversy heats up quickly when the discussion turns toward the notion that revelation might be progressing still today.

Written revelation was completed in the first century. The foundation for the church, and for our age, was laid by the original apostles and prophets (Ephesians 2:20) and through their writings. Jesus is the Word of God. The Old Testament looks forward to him. The New Testament consists of a flurry of writings by those who walked him, or had first or second hand exposure to his life and teachings. The essence of our understandings about God are wrapped up in Jesus. No writer today qualifies to write about the Logos, Jesus, in the same way those first century authors did. I am satisfied that written revelation is, therefore, closed.

But I take a different view when it comes to General Revelation. The heavens and the firmament are “uttering speech” (Psalm 19:-2). To the degree that General Revelation affects theology, to the degree that it informs our understandings about God, and about his work of Creation, to the degree that it illuminates the Scriptures, to that degree we continue to receive revelation! And General Revelation affects theology in many and profound ways.

In addition, while written revelation is closed, it is but one aspect of Special Revelation. The activity of the Holy Spirit in believers, both generally and though the special gifts of the Spirit, includes many streams of illumination. The Spirit still speaks, still teaches (1 Corinthians 2:10-16, John 16:13, 1 John 2:27 et.al.). This illumination does not add to the authoritative base of the Scriptures. It must always be judged by the Scriptures. But the Holy Spirit can refine our understandings of those Scriptures, helping us to arrive a truths contained there which we may have overlooked and/or misinterpreted in the past. In this process, the Holy Spirit may assist us in coalescing of the fruit of our exploration of Creation with the Scriptures in ways we have never seen before.

The interplay of these three elements (growing General Revelation, ongoing Spirit illumination, with the written Word giving us the anchor and setting the parameters of truth) provides us with a richly textured revelation that is dynamic, alive, and progressive.

John Polkinghorne, the Anglican Theologian / Particle Physicist, has long argued for this interplay of science and theology. He sees the two disciplines as “cousins” in search of one ultimate reality. Occasionally we encounter what first appears to be conflict. But as the conflict finds resolution (as it always will!), truths emerge which are deeper and more profound. He describes this process in five successive steps [from Quantum Physics and Theology]:
1. Moments of enforced radical revision
2. A period of unresolved confusion
3. New synthesis and understanding
4. Continued wrestling with unresolved problems
5. Deeper implications
In the last 100 years, there have been many such “moments of enforced radical revision”. Many findings of science have been at first disconcerting, and have resulted in considerable wrestling. In many cases, the wrestling continues as Bible believers come to grips with the concepts of relativity, quantum uncertainty, evolution, the big bang, the age of the universe, the timing of the onset of entropy, the incomprehensible size of the universe, the likelihood of many extra-dimensions, etc. Each of these concepts touches upon theology, how we perceive God, and his work of Creation. Each of them jolt us out of some preconceived notions. They compel us to reevaluate how we read and understand the Scriptures. They shed new light on Scriptures we could not have fully understood before. And just possibly, they lead us to “deeper implications” in theology, origins, eschatology, and even the advance of the Kingdom in our own day.

It is these deeper implications that I wish to explore. I invite you to come along and share with me some fresh new vistas offered to us through the scientific discoveries of the last two or three generations.

And, I ask you to join me in this prayer: Holy Spirit, aid us in this search. Enlighten our hearts and minds, sharpen our insights. May our discussions not become bogged down in idle speculation. Instead, I ask that you lead us to life-changing implications that will find practical expression in how we live out our commitment to the King and the Kingdom.