Episcopal bishop says human definition of God needs revision

[quote]I welcome the attention that serious atheists like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris are offering the world at this moment through their books. They are bringing what I regard as a deserved criticism and a necessary correction to what Christianity has become in our generation.

I, for one, have no desire to worship a God who is thought to favor the war in the Middle East in order to accomplish some obscure prediction found in the late first century book of Revelation, who suppresses women in the name of ancient patriarchy, or who is so deeply homophobic that oppressing homosexuals becomes the defining issue of church life.

Such an irrational, superstitious deity has no appeal to me and the attack of atheists against this kind of God is welcome. I also do not want to be told that the “true God” can be found either in the inerrancy of the Bible or in the infallibility of a Pope. Both are absurd religious claims designed not to discover truth but to enforce religious authority and conformity.

I believe, therefore, that atheism as a challenge to organized religion has a worthy vocation to fulfill. The real atheists are saying that the God they have encountered inside the life of the church is too small and too compromised to be God for their lives. If the church is dedicated to such an unbelievable, magical and miracle-working deity that it cannot admit to any genuine probing of the divine, then the atheist speaks a powerful truth.[/quote]

Full article here:

Very very refreshing to hear. It’s nice to see more and more church pundits turning away from the Jesus-camp-esque mass-brainwashing and anti-science, anti-progress political dabbling so many Christians and would-be Christians have been up to since 9-11 gave them a political sabre to wield.

I think John Shelby’s stance is the only viable counter to the kind of rational, poignant and well-deserved criticism coming from those such as Dawkins:

John Shelby Spong. I like his books too, esp. “Reclaiming the Gospels” (stupid title, it’s about whether the synoptics were constructed around various ancient liturgical calendars, and tries to match each section to the Torah readings for that week) and his book on Mary Magdalene. His more personal stuff (all those books on why he disagrees with his church) is worth reading too. I remember him critiquing the concept of prayer very effectively. (e.g. Does God care more for famous people, who have a lot of people praying for them, than for obscure people?)

The thing is, the Anglican / Episcopal church is internally divided between liberals and conservatives in the U.S., and in England, in about three different directions. Why does Spong think we need this church? Why should it stay together as one body? I don’t think he’s ever really made his case for that. For all its intellectual merits, his brand of liberalism doesn’t seem to attract as many people as the more conservative versions of Anglicanism.