The role of religion: Why take aim at the atheists?

I am a great believer in interfaith dialogue, including “born-again atheists” and “mystical atheists”, and for coming to realise that all sacred scripture is a spiritual metaphor. If for example, we look at the scripture in the Christian gospel, where Jesus says: “But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you” (Matthew 6:6), one is clearly not supposed to take this literally. I know of some well-meaning fundamentalist Christians who literally go into the cupboard in their bedroom and kneel among the shoes with shirts and pants trailing all over them. They have completely missed the point in Jesus’ invitation to withdraw and contemplate the divine in everything.

It is in the spirit of the above thinking that I wish to engage with Professor Steve de Gruchy’s recent, most welcome piece on religion and atheists in the Mail & Guardian. I welcome his call for dialogue, but – partly because I am no longer a Christian and dislike all labels (atheist, agnostic, mystic etc) – I disagree with many of his points. For example, I fail to understand why he feels M&G has “given a disproportionate amount of column space on religion to the views of Richard Dawkins”. I have no problem with the amount of space given to Dawkins because, Christianity, as a religion, or should we say religions as there is such a diversity of doctrinal approaches, has failed to deliver in Africa and elsewhere.

The architects of apartheid used their version of Christianity to justify instituted racism. Let us never forget that! One of the best and most bitterly amusing examples of this perverse rationalisation was a NP minister explaining on the radio in the seventies the parable of the good Samaritan and how that tied up with apartheid policy. During the course of his exegesis of this scripture, the good minister emphasized that the good Samaritan took the assaulted man to a hotel, not to his home. The good minister had failed to see that on one level the parable was about racism. The people who ignored the robbed and assaulted man were a priest and a Levite, and from the historical context we know that neither race nor religious person would have anything to do with an “outsider”, a Samaritan. But through the centuries Jesus has encouraged his listeners through the centuries to have compassion regardless of colour or creed.

Historically, Rhema Church is a good example of manipulating religion for selfish purposes. The likes of Ray McCauley lead materially extravagant lifestyles, in direct contradiction to the simplicity and selflessness the New Testament teaches. I was a churchgoer and for several years in the late eighties and early nineties attended Rhema church in Randburg. The church policy was to have nothing to do with “politics” and the church served only the needs of the wealthy, privileged white, offering spellbinding teachings on purely materialistic prosperity and refusing to comment on the plight of the disenfranchised races in SA. As the apartheid era crumbled, McCauley had his so-called Damascene experience, and apologised for not being actively opposed to apartheid. That was simply a change in marketing strategy and to make his church “relevant”.*

So, to be frank, Professor De Gruchy, many of us have had enough of institutionalised religion shoved down our throats and would rather read alternatives, such as Dawkins. However, like Prof De Gruchy, I am not inclined to think Dawkins is a good example, because of all his sneering. He does not seem to promote effective dialogue among the different faiths, and, if you will, the deliberately faithless. However, De Gruchy is guilty of the same irresponsible destruction of dialogue when he sneers back at Dawkins: “…the kind of fantastical mythical world inhabited by Dawkins and his neophytes”. This too, is not helpful.

De Gruchy says “it is crucial that we are open and honest about the real failures of religion in our context. But contra Dawkins, this reality calls for more theology, not less. If people sing badly, we do not shut down music schools. We train better music teachers”. I am inclined to agree with this clarion call for honesty, openness and, I assume, dialogue, provided that slippery word “theology” is defined. If it is the theology promoted and practised by the likes of the mystical theologian Meister Eckhart, then yes. If it is purely the discursive kind, the armchair philosophy that knows naught of the contemplative lifestyle, then no thank you.

Could Professor De Gruchy, if he reads this blog, define his use of the word theology?

Of course, there has been an astonishing flowering of inter-faith dialogue over the last few decades. The late, great Father Thomas Merton, an abbot of the Trappist order of Catholic monks in the US was a pioneer in his dialogues and sesshins (contemplative retreats, often for ten days, usually conducted in complete silence) with the Buddhists and Hindus, followed by Father Thomas Keating, who was also an abbot of the same order. Both great teachers have the teachings of Eckhart and The Cloud of Unknowing as part of their foundation.

And one cannot begin to appreciate what these times of dialogue and meditation together among the different faiths are until one has experienced them. I have. To use the old, extremely apt comparison, it is like trying to explain an ocean to someone who has only seen water coming out of a tap.

Keating is famous (of course, even notorious in the Catholic Church) for his willingness to listen to, engage with and use the mystical teachings of other religions, particularly Hinduism and Buddhism. Keating’s engagement and dialogue with leading mystical philosophers such as the American Ken Wilbur are of the non-sneering type and are significant contributions to mutual understanding among faiths and learning to truly appreciate, preferably at a level that embraces both the intellectual and the ego-less, what spirituality is, understood by me and many others as sheer presence. Those two words, sheer presence, or just being totally present, cannot do justice, even remotely, to the reality I am speaking of.

The Dalai Lama has also fruitfully engaged with other faiths. His book, The Good Heart, is a wonderful example of his sesshin and dialogue with Christian monks. He was invited to give his interpretation of some of Jesus’ teachings, such as the Sermon on the Mount. He said he would do so, not because of his knowledge of Christian scripture, but for the sake of interfaith dialogue and world peace. The book is magnificent, enriching, uplifting. Most tellingly, the writers comment that the best part of that interfaith dialogue experience could not be expressed: the times of silent meditation among monks of different faiths. When I read the book, I often tingled: these guys are on the right track.

Which brings me to the title of this blog and its comment on De Gruchy’s title. “Taking aim at the atheists” suggest a fight, or sniping, or picking on. It does not suggest dialogue. I am all for dialogue, and I hope Professor De Gruchy and others respond to this. But there is only so much that can be accomplished in a blog, but then, the potential and the use of blogs has yet to be defined.

* I am well aware of the selfless work of the excommunicated Dutch Reformed minister Beyers Naude. Other, smaller SA churches such as The Vineyard Church took an active role of compassion and stood up against apartheid. Here the work of SA Vineyard pastors such as Alexander Venter should be honoured.