For the past couple of years, I have followed the work of John Shelby Spong, well, religiously. As I drew closer to the inevitable end of my faith, I still found his writing to be somehow impacting, transformative, inspiring. Despite the fact that I have come to radically different conclusions than Spong, I still respect him as a brilliant mind, a courageous theologian, and a great leader.
As I opened my inbox last week, I was greeted by Spong’s weekly column (“A New Christianity for a New World”). And, upon reading the title, I thought, “Uh oh…”
The title was “Richard Dawkins and his Challenge to Christianity” and the reason for my initial response was simple: I respect John Shelby Spong because of the liberal, advanced, intelligent way he rethinks faith; and I respect Dawkins because of the brilliant and charismatic way he dismantles faith. In a sense then, the article seemed to be the collision of two men I greatly admire–one representing my past, and one representing my present (and likely future). I did not want to read Spong trying to destroy Dawkins; neither do I like reading atheist attacks on Spong.
Of course, Spong handled the article with his typical grace and civility (well, that which he displays when he is not talking about Archbishop Rowan Williams). But, and this is surprising to me, I found myself disagreeing almost entirely with Spong’s critique. And, mind you, this was the same critique I had read from Spong, Borg, and a few other liberal theologians; but suddenly it lacked the power to convince me.
Perhaps it’s best to start with the contents of Spong’s article, and then address why I disagree.
The God We Reject
Richard Dawkins generally speaks against the supernatural, interventionist, Creator and keeper of history, King of the universe God. To be fair, I am certain that Dawkins himself would clarify and say that he also rejects any sort of divinity, deity, or god, but the book that brought him to the forefront of outspoken atheism focused primarily upon the traditional Christian image of God–the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent. A literal Person and Creator of everything.
Spong recognizes that Dawkins’ criticisms in The God Delusion are primarily focused on this wretched image of God. And Spong rightly asserts that the God that Dawkins rejects is the same God that Spong has been rejecting. Spong, with his non-theistic, non-interventionist, not-really-a-person-but-definitely-a-reality God, has spoken out against the traditionalist God for most of his career. And so, Spong essentially places himself on the same side as Dawkins in regards to these antiquated God-images.
In doing so, his purpose seems to be to suggest that Dawkins’ understanding of God is a caricature, and that his criticisms do not reflect the actual reality of Christian belief today. Spong even goes so far as to state, in regards to the God whom Dawkins rejects, “This rather juvenile God died centuries ago, the victim of a revolution in thought that produced the modern consciousness.” That is to say, the scientific and philosophical advances of the past few centuries have essentially done away with the traditionalist God–the supernatural, all-powerful, guy-in-the-sky God.
Ignorance is King
Once upon a time, I was thrilled when Spong would make such statements. It would fill me with a sense of hope; a sense that maybe religion was becoming more informed, more intelligent, more honest. But, strangely, upon reading this defense by Spong once more, all those feelings are suddenly gone. Yes, I know that in academic circles, the literalist God is all but dead. But it doesn’t matter. Because, for every informed academic believer, there are a dozen uninformed literalists who still claim that God is looking down with a frown when you masturbate, or curse, or watch an R-rated movie. For every pastor that knows the Bible was not written by God, there are a dozen more who will scream that God dipped the quill in the ink himself. In other words, for every Spong there are a dozen Driscolls.
As one of my professors at the university often said, “You can never tell your congregation what you just learned or else they’ll fire you.” The academics may know an awful lot that would help eliminate superstitious ignorance, but the academics are either not speaking it where it matters, or they’re not being heard. (And, in my experience, it is the former, rather than the latter, that is mot prevalent).
I want Spong to be right. I want religion to be on its way toward informed belief rather than blind superstition. And it may simply be that Spong travels in much more educated and liberal religious circles than I ever did. But every church I have ever been to, every pastor I have ever known (except one), and every congregation I have ever spent time with still believe in (or at least publicly affirm) the exact God that Dawkins rejects.
It is very much the case that Spong’s vision of God is not the same as the one that Dawkins criticizes in The God Delusion. But, unfortunately, neither is Spong’s God the one that is still worshipped by the majority of believers. No, the supernatural, interventionist, judge-jury-executioner, Creator-of-all, literalist God is still very much alive and well in the minds of believers. And, despite the work of “frontier theologians” like Spong, and the prevalence of non-literal God-images in academia, there is little sign that popular religion is going to have a sudden awakening to the discoveries and insights (both biblical and theological) of the past two hundred years,
Spong is a brilliant thinker, and I still regard him as one of the few rays of hope for the future of Christianity. But, as regards his critique of Richard Dawkins, I find I must sorrowfully disagree with his conclusions. Popular, literalist religion is all-but-silencing the informed theology and biblical study of the best and brightest thinkers in favor of the regurgitated ignorance of bigoted, arrogant fools.
Unfound Places 