The dramatic contest on Mount Carmel which we heard about in our first lesson reminds me a bit of the contemporary trial between evangelical atheism and liberal Christianity.
There are, of course many differences, or at least many apparent differences.
First, Elijah and the prophets of Baal were not disputing whether or not a god exists; they were both convinced the there was a god and the question was whether Baal was a greater god than YHWH.
Another difference is that the contest on Mount Carmel was a once and for all test; I suppose it could have ended in a nil all draw, but that was not what either side expected; In the contemporary debate, I doubt if either Professor Dawkins or the Archbishop of Canterbury expect their difference to be settled conclusively by a thunderbolt, amusing though it would be if God did arrange some coup de theatre which resulted in the contrite conversion of the Professor to Bible thumping fundamentalism or saccharine Mariolatry. And we should remember that there were some who, not so long ago, thought the destruction a transept of York Minster was God’s reaction to the consecration of the Bishop of Durham. But such a decisive intervention is not very probable and even if a flash of lightening ignited a soaking wood pile, it would be unlikely to convince many; most of us would agree with David Hume that if we think we see a miracle, it is because we have misunderstood the natural law that is apparently been broken.
No, the contest between atheism and faith is a debate. Each side hopes that reason, or insight or inspiration will make the other see the truth of its position, and this is most likely to be a gradual process, rather than a blinding flash.
A third apparent difference is the state involvement in the dispute. Religion was a state affair in ancient Israel. The Church of England remains the established church, but the authority of the government in our society is not founded on religious belief in anything like the way in which Ahaz’s authority was. Christianity has indeed been fundamental in shaping our political discourse and Christian ethics still provide a foundation for much political thought, but we no longer believe that our rulers are appointed by God. Most governments do, however, listen to the messages sent by faith communities, and those communities have certainly campaigned to change the law or policy on such matters as abortion, the environment, third world debt and fair trade. In this their role has not been so dissimilar to the Prophets of ancient Israel.
So there are differences in the nature of the debate and in the role of religion; but Elijah’ contest with the prophets of Baal also has some similarities with contemporary debate between the church and atheism.
Then as now the debate was a public affair and the happenings on Carmel have something of a media event about them. There is the drama and histrionics of a political rally; Elijah’s withering wit would not be out of place in television debate. His extravagant waste of water after seven years drought was huge publicity stunt. In both cases some appeal is to the public. The contemporary Church has, on the whole been more reticent in its public appeal and I think this is because as on Carmel, although less spectacularly, the Church like Elijah is prepared to let God demonstrate his power, which I believe he will do through the work of his people The atheist can only be vindicated by public acceptance; God will vindicate himself, but the evidence of that will that his love can indeed change the world.
There is a further similarity in the circumstances of the two debates. Elijah’s debate comes at the end of seven years of drought and the people’s desperation is beginning to threaten royal authority. We too live in threatening times; our human existence is threatened by global warming and it is now clear that this threat is the result of the rich nations’ pursuit of wealth, comfort and convenience based so largely on burning carbon. The same pursuit of wealth has also had a disastrous effect on the economies of the poorer half (and much more than half) of the world’s population as the worship of the market and free trade have impoverished huge numbers people who now begin to menace their richer neighbours.
This brings us to another similarity; I said that the contemporary contest was between those who believe in a God and those who are certain there is none; on Mount Carmel the question was which God was stronger. But it is not quite so simple; most atheists would say there is no God as we understand our God but they often have faith instead in theories which explain the way the world, and in particular humanity, behaves. The most influential, at least until thirty years ago was the Marxist analysis. More recently the prevailing faith as been in liberal freedom, especially in the economic sphere and the ill effects of state intervention at least in the sphere of private life (state intervention in the affairs of other states who pose a threat, has been as prevalent as ever.) The other great all explaining theory is natural selection which clearly provides a more convincing account of continuous creation than can be extracted from the naïve reading of the Bible. The atheists’ mistake, is to suggest that these theories must stand alone and that no other force or philosophy can or should guide human conduct. There may have been much that was worthwhile in the worship of Baal; its prophets’ mistake, like the atheists’ was to think their god was adequate when faced with the strength of YHWH.
It will be clear by now that I think the contemporary debate between atheism and religious faith is closely linked to a disastrous reliance on, indeed faith in, essentially godless theories and beliefs. These philosophies need not be inconsistent with the belief in a loving creative God, but I am convinced that we need to add God to the equation if we are to avert impending doom and certainly if we are to find salvation.
On Mt Carmel YHWH showed his superiority and strength over Baal by setting the sodden sacrifice ablaze; we should now not expect similar miracles either to demonstrate the existence God, or to cool the world a few degrees or feed the hungry millions. We can, however, hope that we ourselves may, collectively, and in time, achieve those results, but we shall only do so if we can identify ourselves with the loving and creating God and ourselves realise that selfless love for our fellow creatures- both animate and inanimate. Such a transformation would indeed be wonderful; it would be a miracle of God’s grace, a miracle far more spectacular that that experienced on Mt Carmel but one over which David Hume need lose no sleep. Let us pray for that miraculous conversion of ourselves and the strength, inspiration, ingenuity- whatever it takes- to bring it to others. Amen