Dr Ben du Toit se reis na ‘bevryding’

Dr Ben du Toit was ‘n bekende persoonlikheid in die NG Kerk en spesifiek in die organisasie van die kerk. Sy alternatiewe sienings van tradisonele kwessies was net so bekend. Ek gaan nie daarop in nie, maar bepaal my by sy onlangs boek, God: Is daar ‘n ander antwoord? (Lapa Uitgewers 2020)

Die boek het onder my aandag gekom in ‘n artikel in die Vrye Weekblad oor ‘n gesprek tussen hom en ‘n sekere Chris Tomas (skuilnaam) oor die boek en oor sy reis na “bevryding”. Chris Tomas laat dit duidelik in die artikel blyk dat hy die saak veel meer aggressief as Dr du Toit sou aangepak het. Ek haal aan:

“Ons praat vir twee en ‘n half ure. Soms driftig, want daar is nuanses waaroor ons al jare lank verskil. Dit gaan meestal oor aanslag - ek wil godsdiens uitroei. Maar oor God stem ons heelhartig saam: Hy bestaan slegs in die verbeelding.”

Hy sluit die artikel af met: “My kritiek op die boek is dat Ben nie ver genoeg gaan nie. As die kerk reeds eeue lank ‘n leuen verkondig wat nou, uiteindelik, deur ‘n amptenaar van die kerk erken word, is dit nodig dat die kerk verskoning aanteken en vergoeding aanbied”.

My eerste stukkie kommentaar gaan oor Chris Tomas, die artikelskrywer (ek het ‘n sterk vermoede wie die persoon is). Hy is duidelik ‘n aggressiewe ateïs. My ervaring met eintlik alle ateïste waarmee ek al te doen gekry het is dat ‘n debat sinneloos is en meestal in neerhalende etikettering eindig. Dit is in teenstelling met die styl wat Dr du Toit deurgaans in sy boek en onderhoude gevolg het. Hy wil homself daarom ook nie ‘n ateïs noem nie want hy wil nie met die meerderwaardige houding van ateïste geassosieer word nie.

Ateïste se vertrekpunt en roem is dat hulle rasioneel is. Die waarheid is in die Rede gesetel en die Rede seëvier altyd. Dit val op hoe Chris Tomas hiervan afwyk. Eerstens in sy gebruik van die woord leuen. ‘n Leuen is ‘n opsetlike of bewustelike valse voorstelling. Om die verkondiging van die Evangelie deur die kerk as ‘n opsetlike of bewustelik valse voorstelling te beskryf is meer as net opportunisties. Tweedens is die stelling dat dit nou “..eindelik deur ‘n amptenaar van die kerk erken word..” ewe bedenklik. Dr du Toit het nie sy boek as amptenaar van die kerk geskryf nie. Hy was reeds afgetree. Verder impliseer die stelling dat hy namens die kerk praat. Hy doen dit definitief nie. Daar kan tog slegs ‘n verpligting op die kerk rus om verskoning aan te teken as ‘n verteenwoordiger van die kerk ‘n leuen erken? Hy het glad nie namens die kerk gepraat nie, dit was ‘n persoonlike ontboeseming wat eerder kritiek op die kerk was. Kon Chris Tomas dit nie raaksien nie?

My ervaring met ateïste is dat jy op ‘n baie seer toon trap as jy logiese foute in hulle argument uitwys. Logika is dan ‘n kernkomponent van hulle belydenis.

Dr du Toit se reis op sy pad na “bevryding” kom al van ver af. In die proses het hy openlik gevestigde religieuse opvattings bevraagteken het. Buiten die boek onder

bespreking is die ander een wat opskudding veroorsaak het, God? Geloof in ‘n postmoderne tyd (CLF-Uitgewers 2000).

In die boek God Is daar ‘n ander antwoord? eindig hy elke hoofstuk met ‘n een paragraaf-opsomming van die kern daarvan. Die lys van opsommings lyk soos volg

DUS:

• Die soeke na kennis, na die waarheid, na begrip vir geloofwaardige inligting, is ‘n interdissiplinêre uitdaging.

• Skouspelagtige ontwikkelings (nuwe teorieë) in die wetenskap en tegnologie is die kenmerk van die moderne wetenskaplike tydperk.

• ‘n Positiewe invloed van die ontwikkelende moderne wetenskap op godsdiens/teologie kan aangetoon word.

• Maar waarmee die wetenskap die kerk/geloof nie kan help nie, is die bevestiging van ‘n geloof in God (God is nie wetenskaplik bewysbaar nie).

• Vandag word die gesag en mag, asook die noodsaak van God of van die kerk (godsdiens), veral in die Weste, toenemend deur die ontwikkelende moderne wetenskap uitgedaag – en word die gevolgtrekking gemaak dat die mens ouer as God is. In hierdie sin is daar niks “in die hemel” wat nie op die aarde gemaak is nie.

• Dat die greep van godsdiens op miljoene mense sal voortduur (vrees vir die dood/straf/lyding; soeke na sin – ‘n psigies-gekondisioneerde toestand) kan wetenskaplik aangetoon word.

• Die onderskeid tussen godsdiens en spiritualiteit gaan (dus) nie op wanneer iemand daarmee meen om van die probleme van godsdiens (soos formalisme, dogma en strukture) te ontkom nie – en nou “die spirituele” as ‘n nuwe tuiste aangryp. Ook enige vorm van spiritualiteit het soos alle godsdienste ‘n fundamentalistiese vertrekpunt.

• Evolusie van godsdiens? Dieselfde evolusionêre proses wat die moontlikheid van godsdiens tot gevolg gehad het, is nou verantwoordelik vir die uitfasering daarvan as ‘n noodsaaklike faktor in die oorlewing van die menslike spesie.

• Die vrees en huiwering wat daar mag wees om “uit die kas te kom” sover dit jou afskeid van die geloof in metafisiese magte aanbetref, kan oorwin word deur die waarheid oor jouself en die wêreld waarin jy woon in die oë te kyk.

• Vanuit ‘n post-teïstiese posisie leef ons met die ideaal van ‘n radikaal bevrydende humaniteit.

Dit is dalk nie so duidelik uit sy opsomming van die inhoud hierbo nie, maar dit is duidelik uit die boek en uit ‘n ander onderhoud met hom deur Jean Oosthuizen dat sy reis na “bevryding” om die volgende kwessies gedraai het:

Die kerk en gelowiges se selektiewe toepassing van die liefdesgebod blyk iets te wees wat Dr du Toit deurgaans gekwel het. Die wreedheid van mense en spesifiek gelowiges teenoor mekaar, deur die eeue heen is vir hom onversoenbaar met ‘n God van liefde en met ‘n belydenis van naasteliefde. Hy verwys ook na die Afrikaanse hoofstroom kerke en meer spesifiek na die NG Kerk. Uit die aard van die saak gaan dit hier hoofsaaklik oor Apartheid en die kerk se goedkeuring daarvan, of minstens die kerk se apatiese gesindheid daarteenoor. Die NG kerk se heen-en-weer-hantering van die LGBT-kwessie val vir hom ook in hierdie kategeorie en dit blyk ook ‘n groot steen des aanstoots te wees. Hy gee wel erkenning aan die kerk se uitreikaksies om die lot van mense te verbeter, maar dit kanselleer nie die primêre probleem nie.
Tweedens, die onversoenbaarheid van drie aanvaarde eienskappe van God met mekaar, naamlik almagtig, alwetend en liefdevol. Volgens hom is die empiriese getuienis oorweldigend dat net twee van die drie gelyktydig waar kan wees. Die grootskaalse lyding en verdriet op die aarde deur die eeue is versoenbaar met ‘n almagtige en alwetende God, maar nie met een wat ook liefdevol is nie.
Die toenemende rol wat die ontwikkelende wetenskap speel in die begrip van kosmologiese en ander vraagstukke blyk ‘n groot stepping stone in Dr du Toit se reis te wees. In ‘n moderne en post-moderne wêreld slaag die wetenskap (meerdere dissiplines) toenemend daarin om alle groot vraagstukke te verklaar. Die wetenskap kon ook die kerk en geloof op bepaalde terreine help, maar nie as dit kom by die bewys van die bestaan van God nie. Dit is nie wetenskaplik bewysbaar nie.
Uit die vorige punt volg dan vir hom dat die greep wat godsdiens op mense het, eerder ‘n psigologiese oorsprong het as wat dit die gevolg van ‘n metafisiese, goddelike werking is. Soos wat die wetenskap vorder en mense se omstandighede verander, gaan mense die behoefte aan ‘n metafisiese god toenemend ontgroei - soos wat dit reeds in die ontwikkelde wêreld duidelik is. Dit geld vir alle gode, nie net die drie-enige God nie. Aan die ander kant gaan die situasie en omstandighede van bepaalde gemeenskappe die psigologiese behoefte aan en drang na ‘n metafisiese mag stimuleer en sal godsdiens in bepaalde gemeenskappe voortduur.
Godsdiens los nie probleme op nie. Dit skep eerder probleme. Die verlossing lê in die wetenskap.
Die reis na ‘n post-teïstiese bestemming lei tot ‘n radikaal bevrydende humaniteit.

My kommentaar:

Dr du Toit het duidelik ‘n jarelange stryd met spesifiek die NG Kerk. Hy kom uit ‘n Malawiese en Zimbawiese sendelinghuis en wou van vroeg reeds predikant word. Maar dit is ook duidelik dat hy baie vroeg reeds bepaalde kwessies met die kerk ontwikkel het. Die kerk se onkritiese ondersteuning van en vrede met Apartheid blyk die eerste kwessie te wees.

Ek kan self goed met hierdie punt assosieer. Die drie hoofstroom Afrikaanse kerke kan wat dit betref grootliks oor dieselfde kam geskeer word. In 1977/78 het ek ook my lidmaatskap met die Gereformeerde kerk om dieselfde rede bevraagteken.

Die punt hier is dat die kerkorganisasie, kerkleiers en ander lidmate deur hulle optrede soms ‘n valse eenheid en valse vroomheid bewerk. Onder meer omdat die lidmate en kerkleiers self deur ideologieë verlei word en daar dan ‘n duidelike kloof ontstaan tussen die belydenis van Sondag en bepaalde fasette van die lewe van die week. Afrikaner-nasionalisme was deurentyd ‘n groot verleier. En op ‘n vroeër stadium het ‘n vorm van nasionaal-sosialisme ook ‘n rol gespeel.

Dan is dit doodeenvoudig ook so dat die kerk vir homself met verloop van tyd ‘n organisatoriese doolhof geskep het. Kyk maar hoe lank dit neem om ‘n ietwat kontensieuse saak af te handel en kyk na die draaie en swaaie wat soms gegooi word. Die hantering van LGBT kwessie in die NG kerk was vir Dr du Toit ‘n goeie voorbeeld. Kerkeenheid is ‘n hekkie waaroor dikwels gestruikel word. Dit is waarskynlik ook die rede vir die toenemende irritasie onder lidmate en predikante met sinodale aktiwiteite, ook in die Gereformeerde kerk.

Die alternatief vir iemand wat hom vasloop teen ‘n kerkorganisasie se ingesteldheid en hantering van sake is voor die handliggend. Daar is meestal goeie alternatiewe. Die kerkgeskiedenis is besaai met voorbeelde van beswaardes wat by ander kerke aangesluit het of nuwe kerkgenootskappe gestig het. Die Gereformeerde kerk is self die resultaat daarvan.

Die belangrike vraag vir my hier is hoe verskille met die kerk t.o.v. die toepassing van Bybelse beginsels momentum gee aan ‘n reis na post-teïsme? Die probleem lê tog eerstens by die bepaalde kerk, by die organsisasie en sy mense, en nie by die onderliggende beginsels nie. Die antwoord is waarskynlik deels dat die ontnugtering met die geloofwaardigheid van kerkleiers en met die organisasie, ‘n breër skeptisisme laat ontwikkel het. Maar daar is moontlik nog ‘n verklaring. Ek om terug daarop.

Die vraag oor hoe ‘n liefdevolle God soveel verdriet en lyding in die wêreld toelaat is ‘n baie ou vraag. En dit is ‘n geldige vraag want die antwoord is nie so voor die handliggend nie. Dit is ‘n komplekse saak waarmee teoloë ook al baie geworstel het. As jyself, of iemand naby aan jou ernstig beproef word kom die vraagtekens terug. As jy ‘n kind verloor, of ‘n lang lyding ondergaan, of ‘n droogte van vyf jaar moet verduur, dan is die saak dikwels nie meer so helder soos voorheen nie.

Daar is antwoorde. Sommige duideliker as ander. En daar is heelwat bronne. Maar die werklike antwoord kom nie in die vorm van ‘n eenvoudige stelling nie. Die kort antwoord draai om die feit dat die goedheid wat in die wêreld is en die vermoë om die regte keuses te maak nie sou kon bestaan sonder die vermoë om ook verkeerde keuses te kan maak en slegte gevolge te veroorsaak nie. Dit is natuurlik meer kompleks as wat ek dit hier skryf en baie makliker om die teorie te verstaan as wanneer mens dit self belewe. Lees gerus Udo Karsten se uiteensetting in

www.antwoord.org.za met die titel “As God in beheer is, hoekom lyk die wêreld so?” Daar is al baie oor die onderwerp geskryf en die webblad bevat ook heelwat verwysings daarna. Die bekende Amerikaanse predikant Tim Keller verduidelik dit ook in sy boek, Walking with God through pain and suffering.

In die worsteling met die sin van lyding is dit belangrik om in gedagte te hou dat as ‘n mens alles sou kon verstaan en verklaar, dan het jyself saam met God buite die wêreld en die wetenskap gestaan. Dit ons nog nie beskore nie.

Die voorbeelde wat Dr du Toit noem in sy oordeel oor gelowiges en godsdiens in ‘n wêreld vol lyding, gaan ook nie almal heeltemal op nie. Sy aanname dat die Holocaust ‘n religieuse basis gehad het en dat die Jode uitgeroei is omdat hulle Christus doodgemaak het, is hoogs aanvegbaar. Daar was heelwat kritiek op die party en sy ideologie vanuit bepaalde Lutherse kringe. Teoloë wat die Naziparty ondersteun het, het dit hoofsaaklik vanuit ‘n anti-semitiese oogpunt gedoen. Die Holocaust was kultureel en etnies, eerder as religieus, gemotiveer. Jode wat hulle tot die Christendom bekeer het, is ook deur die Nazis uitgedryf en vervolg. Soos Helga Basel, die moeder van Pieter-Dirk Uys wat van Joodse afloms was maar haar tot die Christendom bekeer het. Religie is bloot aan die hare bygesleep.

Dr du Toit het sekerlik in sy loopbaan alle kante van die lydingdilemma bekyk. Die probleem is dat sy boek nie regtig op’n analitiese of filosofiese wyse hiermee omgaan nie. Hy volstaan eintlik met die stelling dat die getuienis oorweldigend is dat daar nie ‘n almagtige, alwetende en liefdevolle God kan wees nie. Dit sou slegs anders kon wees as God lyding uit die weg geruim het.

Dr du Toit se reis na “bevryding” word ook aangehelp deur sy siening dat die wetenskap toenemend ‘n sinvolle verklaring vir alle groot vraagstukke bied, maar dat daar geen verklaring is vir die bestaan van ‘n metafisiese god nie.

Net soos by die vorige punt ontbreek daar hier ook ‘n gestruktureerde beredenering. Waarom? Hy het die saak sekerlik al van alle kante bekyk en die tersaaklike literatuur bestudeer.

Waarom behandel hy nie die filosofiese en kosmologiese kwessies van oorsaak, begin en gevolg nie? Dit is nie sake wat afhang van sy siening van en verhouding met die NG Kerk nie. Dit is ook nie iets wat noodwendig afhanklik is van die bestaan van ‘n liefdevolle drie-enige God nie. ‘n Enkelvoudige almagtige wese, buite die wetenskap, tyd en ruimte, sou moontlik reeds ‘n deel van die antwoord kon uitmaak.

Dit is aksiomaties dat alles wat ‘n begin het, ‘n oorsaak moet hê. En daardie oorsaak moet buite dit wat begin het staan. Dit geld uiteraard ook vir die Heelal. Daar is vandag baie sterk wetenskaplike ondersteuning vir die aanname dat die Heelal ongeveer 13,7 biljoen jaar gelede ontstaan het. As die Heelal nie ‘n begin gehad het nie, dan was dit van ewig af. Maar so ‘n aanname loop hom vas teen sterk argumente teen ‘n fisiese ewigheidskonsep. Ewigheid/oneindigheid is ‘n teoretiese konsep. Dis nie prakties bereikbaar nie. (Die stelling dat God van ewigheid bestaan is nie tegnies/taalkundig korrek nie. God staan buite die tyd.) Ons kan dus ook nie praat van “voor” die ontstaan van die Heelal nie. Daar kan nie ‘n “voor die Heelal” wees nie, want tyd is ‘n intrinsieke, endemiese komponent van die Heelal.

Dit wat in die populêre media verskyn oor parallelle heelalle of opeenvolgende heelalle is spekulatief en het nie ‘n wyd erkende wetenskaplike basis nie. Dit is bloot hipoteses. In my eie twee jaar Astronomie studie aan die UCLAN is dit nooit eers genoem nie. Dit word vandag wyd aanvaar dat die Heelal (en tyd) met die sg Big Bang begin het. (Universe - 7th edition, Roger A. Freedman en William J Kaufmann).

Die bekende en gerekende fisikus Stephen Hawking, wat nie gelowig was nie, het by geleentheid toegegee dat die feit dat die Heelal ‘n begin gehad het religieuse raakpunte het, maar noem dan dat die meeste fisici vandag geneig is om weg te skram van religieuse verklarings. In sy boek The Grand Design , Stephen Hawking & Leonard Mlodinow, Bantam Press 2010, skram hy self weg van ‘n intelligente skeppingsidee en verkies om van ‘n “spontaneous creation” te praat.

Daar is dan nog die ander kwessie van intelligente ontwerp. Dit is ook aksiomaties dat kompleksiteit nie geredelik die gevolg van natuurlike ontwikkeling is nie. As kompleksiteit sekere grense oorskry dan was daar super-waarskynlik berekende intervensie. Byvoorbeeld, vir ‘n bepaalde spesie om sterker en vinniger te word, is normale ontwikkeling en natuurlike seleksie meestal voldoende. Maar ‘n radikale en massief-komplekse verandering, soos die ontstaan van DNS of die vermoë om aan ‘n mag te kan glo wat nie sintuiglik waarneembaar is nie, vereis iets ingrypends soos intelligente ontwerp.

Soos reeds genoem maak Dr du Toit staat op die moderne wetenskap in sy soeke na antwoorde op lewensvraagstukke. Die antwoord op die vraag waarom soveel mense in ‘n opperwese glo vind hy in die psigologie. Dit is natuurlik nie heeltemal onwaar nie. ‘n Mens se besef van sy eie onvolkomenheid en afhanklikheid van sterker kragte as hyself kan sekerlik ‘n behoefte aan bonatuurlike beskerming stimuleer. Maar die inherente vermoë om dit te kan doen, is waarskynlik eerder die gevolg van ontwerp as van natuurlike ontwikkeling. Dit beteken nie dat natuurlike ontwikkeling uit die proses uitgesluit was nie, maar dat die ontwikkeling “gerig en bestuur” was.

Dr du Toit se slotsom is dat godsdiens nie probleme oplos nie maar probleme skep. Die wetenskap los probleme op. Die mens het God geskep, nie andersom nie.

Ek wil kortliks terugkom op die vraag waarom Dr du Toit nie werklik ‘n gestruktureerde bendadering volg in sy reis na “bevryding” nie. Hy noem bepaalde aspekte maar trek nie die lyne deur nie. Hier is die aspekte kortliks weer:

Die oënskynlike onversoenbaarheid van ‘n liefdevolle God met die grootskaalse pyn en lyding deur die eeue heen.
Die volhardende en ooglopende konflik tussen gelowiges se belydenis en hulle optrede - met besondere verwysing na die Afrikaanse kerke en Apartheid.
Die rol van die wetenskap wat toenemend meer en beter antwoorde op lewensvraagstukke gee.
Die bestaan van ‘n metafisiese god is nie bewysbaar nie en is die produk van ‘n psigologiese proses - God is deur die mens geskep.

Die bestaan of nie-bestaan van ‘n metafisiese god is nie eenduidig uit die wetenskap bewysbaar nie. Die wetenskap, die geskiedenis en filosofie kan wel bepaalde aannames in diè verband ondersteun. Dit beteken dat ‘n debat oor hierdie saak nie voldoende is nie. ‘n Mens moet ‘n pad daarmee stap. Dis ‘n pad met aanwysings maar daar is ook afdraaipaaie waar die aanwysings nie duidelik is nie. Die werklike oortuiging volg na ‘n reis op hierdie pad. En daar is tydens die reis ook versoekings om ‘n afdraaipad te neem. Dit werk na beide kante toe.

Ek dink Dr du Toit het op sy pad ‘n (dalk onbewuste) voorkeur vir ‘n bepaalde bestemming ontwikkel. Daarom het hy dit nie nodig gevind om ‘n sistematies- konsekwente proses te volg nie. Sy kompas was reeds ingestel op post-teïsme as bestemming. Toe hy ‘n aantal argumente of sentimente in daardie rigting gehad het, was dit vir hom goed genoeg. Net soos wat die argumente wat ek het ten gunste van die bestaan van ‘n Drie-enige God vir my genoeg is. Ek het my bestemming gekies en ek glo die bestemming het my gekies.

Die les vir die kerk is dat hy op die regte pad moet bly en nie deur ideologieë (nasionalisme, kapitalisme of wat ookal) verlei moet word nie. Verder moet die kerkorganisasie voortdurend daarteen waak om nie empire te bou en self die middelpunt te wil raak nie. En ook nie gebruike en tradisies in beginsels laat verander nie. Hier dink mens o.a. aan liturgiese gebruike, kleredrag, ens.

Die les vir Christengelowiges is dat ‘n eenmalige belydenis en sporadiese denke oor geloofsake nie voldoende is nie. Dit lei maklik tot apatie en verleiding deur ander argumente. Geloof groei en word versterk deur ‘n lewensreis in ‘n ondersteunende omgewing soos ‘n geloofsgemeenskap. Dis nie ‘n sprokiesverhaal nie. Dis ‘n stryd, maar wel ‘n stryd met ‘n volkome eindbestemming.

Dr Ben du Toit was a well-known figure in the Dutch Reformed Church (NG Kerk) and specifically in the organisational structures of the church. His alternative views on traditional matters were equally well known. I will not go into those here, but will confine myself to his recent book, God: Is daar ‘n ander antwoord? (Lapa Publishers 2020).

The book came to my attention through an article in the Vrye Weekblad about a conversation between him and a certain Chris Tomas (pseudonym) about the book and about his journey to “liberation”. Chris Tomas makes it clear in the article that he would have approached the matter far more aggressively than Dr du Toit. I quote:

“We talk for two and a half hours. At times heatedly, because there are nuances on which we have differed for years. It is mostly about approach – I want to eradicate religion. But about God we agree wholeheartedly: He exists only in the imagination.”

He concludes the article with: “My criticism of the book is that Ben does not go far enough. If the church has been proclaiming a lie for centuries, which is now, finally, acknowledged by an official of the church, it is necessary for the church to apologise and offer compensation.”

My first piece of commentary concerns Chris Tomas, the article writer (I have a strong suspicion who the person is). He is clearly an aggressive atheist. My experience with virtually all atheists I have dealt with is that debate is pointless and usually ends in condescending labelling. This is in contrast to the style that Dr du Toit consistently followed in his book and interviews. For this reason he also does not want to call himself an atheist because he does not want to be associated with the superiority complex of atheists.

Atheists’ starting point and boast is that they are rational. Truth resides in Reason, and Reason always prevails. It is striking how Chris Tomas deviates from this. Firstly in his use of the word “lie”. A lie is a deliberate or conscious misrepresentation. To describe the church’s proclamation of the Gospel as a deliberate or conscious misrepresentation is more than merely opportunistic. Secondly, the statement that it has now “…finally been acknowledged by an official of the church…” is equally dubious. Dr du Toit did not write his book as an official of the church. He was already retired. Furthermore, the statement implies that he speaks on behalf of the church. He definitively does not. Surely an obligation to apologise can only rest on the church if a representative of the church acknowledges a lie? He did not speak on behalf of the church at all; it was a personal confession that was rather a critique of the church. Could Chris Tomas not see this?

My experience with atheists is that you step on a very sore toe when you point out logical errors in their arguments. Logic is, after all, a core component of their creed.

Dr du Toit’s journey on his road to “liberation” goes back a long way. In the process he openly questioned established religious convictions. Besides the book under discussion, the other one that caused a stir was God? Geloof in ‘n postmoderne tyd (CLF Publishers 2000).

In the book God: Is daar ‘n ander antwoord? he ends each chapter with a one-paragraph summary of its essence. The list of summaries reads as follows:

THEREFORE:

The search for knowledge, for truth, for understanding of credible information, is an interdisciplinary challenge.
Spectacular developments (new theories) in science and technology are the hallmark of the modern scientific era.
A positive influence of developing modern science on religion/theology can be demonstrated.
But what science cannot help the church/faith with is the confirmation of a belief in God (God is not scientifically provable).
Today the authority and power, as well as the necessity of God or of the church (religion), especially in the West, is increasingly being challenged by developing modern science – and the conclusion is drawn that humanity is older than God. In this sense there is nothing “in heaven” that was not made on earth.
That the grip of religion on millions of people will continue (fear of death/punishment/suffering; search for meaning – a psychologically conditioned state) can be scientifically demonstrated.
The distinction between religion and spirituality therefore does not hold when someone uses it to escape the problems of religion (such as formalism, dogma and structures) – and now grasps “the spiritual” as a new home. Any form of spirituality, like all religions, also has a fundamentalist starting point.
Evolution of religion? The same evolutionary process that gave rise to the possibility of religion is now responsible for phasing it out as a necessary factor in the survival of the human species.
The fear and hesitation that may exist about “coming out of the closet” as far as your farewell to belief in metaphysical powers is concerned, can be overcome by looking the truth about yourself and the world in which you live in the eye.
From a post-theistic position we live with the ideal of a radically liberating humanity.

It may not be entirely clear from his summary of the contents above, but it is clear from the book and from another interview with him by Jean Oosthuizen that his journey to “liberation” revolved around the following issues:

The church’s and believers’ selective application of the commandment of love appears to be something that troubled Dr du Toit throughout. The cruelty of people, and specifically of believers towards one another, through the centuries is for him irreconcilable with a God of love and with a confession of neighbourly love. He also refers to the Afrikaans mainline churches and more specifically to the Dutch Reformed Church. Naturally, this is primarily about Apartheid and the church’s approval of it, or at least the church’s apathetic attitude towards it. The Dutch Reformed Church’s back-and-forth handling of the LGBT issue also falls into this category for him and also appears to be a major stumbling block. He does acknowledge the church’s outreach efforts to improve people’s circumstances, but this does not cancel the primary problem.
Secondly, the irreconcilability of three accepted attributes of God with one another, namely omnipotent, omniscient and loving. According to him, the empirical evidence is overwhelming that only two of the three can be simultaneously true. Large-scale suffering and grief on earth through the centuries is reconcilable with an omnipotent and omniscient God, but not with one who is also loving.
The increasing role that developing science plays in understanding cosmological and other questions appears to be a major stepping stone in Dr du Toit’s journey. In a modern and postmodern world, science (multiple disciplines) increasingly succeeds in explaining all major questions. Science could also help the church and faith in certain areas, but not when it comes to proving the existence of God. It is not scientifically provable.
From the previous point it follows for him that the grip that religion has on people has a psychological origin rather than being the result of a metaphysical, divine action. As science advances and people’s circumstances change, people will increasingly outgrow the need for a metaphysical god – as is already evident in the developed world. This applies to all gods, not just the Triune God. On the other hand, the situation and circumstances of certain communities will stimulate the psychological need for and drive towards a metaphysical power, and religion in certain communities will continue.
Religion does not solve problems. It rather creates problems. Salvation lies in science.
The journey to a post-theistic destination leads to a radically liberating humanity.

My commentary:

Dr du Toit clearly had a years-long struggle with the Dutch Reformed Church specifically. He came from a Malawian and Zimbabwean missionary home and wanted to become a minister from an early age. But it is also clear that he developed certain issues with the church very early on. The church’s uncritical support for and peace with Apartheid appears to be the first issue.

I can personally identify well with this point. The three mainline Afrikaans churches can in this regard largely be tarred with the same brush. In 1977/78, I too questioned my membership of the Reformed Church (Gereformeerde Kerk) for the same reason.

The point here is that the church organisation, church leaders and other members through their conduct sometimes bring about a false unity and false piety. Among other things because the members and church leaders are themselves seduced by ideologies, and a clear gap then develops between the confession of Sunday and certain facets of the life of the week. Afrikaner nationalism was throughout a great seducer. And at an earlier stage a form of national socialism also played a role.

Then it is simply the case that the church created for itself over time an organisational labyrinth. Just look at how long it takes to deal with a somewhat contentious matter and look at the twists and turns that are sometimes taken. The handling of the LGBT issue in the Dutch Reformed Church was for Dr du Toit a good example. Church unity is a hurdle over which people frequently stumble. This is probably also the reason for the increasing irritation among members and ministers with synodal activities, also in the Reformed Church.

The alternative for someone who hits a wall against a church organisation’s disposition and handling of matters is self-evident. There are usually good alternatives. Church history is littered with examples of objectors who joined other churches or founded new denominations. The Reformed Church is itself the result of that.

The important question for me here is how differences with the church regarding the application of biblical principles give momentum to a journey towards post-theism? The problem surely lies firstly with the particular church, with the organisation and its people, and not with the underlying principles. The answer is probably partly that the disillusionment with the credibility of church leaders and with the organisation allowed a broader scepticism to develop. But there is possibly another explanation. I will come back to that.

The question of how a loving God allows so much grief and suffering in the world is a very old one. And it is a valid question, because the answer is not so self-evident. It is a complex matter with which theologians have also struggled greatly. When you yourself, or someone close to you, is severely tested, the question marks return. When you lose a child, or undergo prolonged suffering, or must endure a drought of five years, then the matter is often no longer as clear as before.

There are answers. Some clearer than others. And there are many sources. But the real answer does not come in the form of a simple statement. The short answer revolves around the fact that the goodness that exists in the world and the ability to make the right choices could not exist without the ability to also make wrong choices and cause bad consequences. This is naturally more complex than I write it here, and much easier to understand in theory than when one experiences it personally. Do read Udo Karsten’s exposition at www.antwoord.org.za with the title “As God in beheer is, hoekom lyk die wêreld so?” (“If God is in control, why does the world look this way?”). Much has been written on the subject and the website also contains many references to it. The well-known American pastor Tim Keller also explains this in his book, Walking with God through Pain and Suffering.

In the struggle with the meaning of suffering, it is important to keep in mind that if a person could understand and explain everything, then you yourself would have stood alongside God outside the world and science. That has not yet been granted to us.

The examples that Dr du Toit cites in his assessment of believers and religion in a world full of suffering also do not all entirely hold up. His assumption that the Holocaust had a religious basis and that the Jews were exterminated because they killed Christ is highly contestable. There was considerable criticism of the party and its ideology from certain Lutheran circles. Theologians who supported the Nazi party did so primarily from an anti-Semitic viewpoint. The Holocaust was culturally and ethnically, rather than religiously, motivated. Jews who converted to Christianity were also expelled and persecuted by the Nazis. Like Helga Basel, the mother of Pieter-Dirk Uys, who was of Jewish descent but had converted to Christianity. Religion was merely dragged in by the hair.

Dr du Toit has certainly in his career examined all sides of the suffering dilemma. The problem is that his book does not really engage with it in an analytical or philosophical manner. He effectively settles for the claim that the evidence is overwhelming that there cannot be an omnipotent, omniscient and loving God. It could only be otherwise if God had removed suffering.

Dr du Toit’s journey to “liberation” is also aided by his view that science increasingly provides a meaningful explanation for all major questions, but that there is no explanation for the existence of a metaphysical god.

Just as with the previous point, a structured argument is also lacking here. Why? He has surely examined the matter from all angles and studied the relevant literature.

Why does he not address the philosophical and cosmological questions of cause, origin and consequence? These are not matters that depend on his view of and relationship with the Dutch Reformed Church. Nor are they necessarily dependent on the existence of a loving Triune God. A singular omnipotent being, beyond science, time and space, could already constitute part of the answer.

It is axiomatic that everything that has a beginning must have a cause. And that cause must stand outside that which began. This naturally applies to the Universe as well. There is today very strong scientific support for the assumption that the Universe originated approximately 13.7 billion years ago. If the Universe did not have a beginning, then it existed from eternity. But such an assumption runs up against strong arguments against a physical concept of eternity. Eternity/infinity is a theoretical concept. It is not practically attainable. (The statement that God exists from eternity is not technically/linguistically correct. God stands outside of time.) We therefore also cannot speak of “before” the origin of the Universe. There cannot be a “before the Universe”, because time is an intrinsic, endemic component of the Universe.

What appears in the popular media about parallel universes or successive universes is speculative and does not have a widely recognised scientific basis. These are merely hypotheses. In my own two years of Astronomy study at UCLAN it was never even mentioned. It is widely accepted today that the Universe (and time) began with the so-called Big Bang. (Universe - 7th edition, Roger A. Freedman and William J. Kaufmann).

The renowned physicist Stephen Hawking, who was not a believer, on occasion conceded that the fact that the Universe had a beginning has religious implications, but then notes that most physicists today tend to shy away from religious explanations. In his book The Grand Design (Stephen Hawking & Leonard Mlodinow, Bantam Press 2010), he himself shies away from the idea of purposeful creation and prefers to speak of a “spontaneous creation”.

Then there is the further question of the extraordinary complexity found in the natural order. It is also axiomatic that complexity is not readily the result of natural development. When complexity exceeds certain thresholds, it is overwhelmingly probable that there was purposeful intervention. For example, for a particular species to become stronger and faster, normal development and natural selection are usually sufficient. But a radical and massively complex change, such as the origin of DNA or the capacity to believe in a power that is not perceptible to the senses, requires something far-reaching – the kind of providential ordering that points beyond nature itself.

As already mentioned, Dr du Toit relies on modern science in his search for answers to life’s questions. The answer to the question of why so many people believe in a supreme being he finds in psychology. This is of course not entirely untrue. A person’s awareness of their own imperfection and dependence on forces stronger than themselves can certainly stimulate a need for supernatural protection. But the inherent capacity to do this is more likely the result of purposeful ordering than of natural development alone. This does not mean that natural development was excluded from the process, but that the development was “directed and governed”.

Dr du Toit’s conclusion is that religion does not solve problems but creates them. Science solves problems. Humanity created God, not the other way round.

I want to return briefly to the question of why Dr du Toit does not truly follow a structured approach in his journey to “liberation”. He mentions certain aspects but does not draw the lines through. Here are the aspects again briefly:

The apparent irreconcilability of a loving God with the large-scale pain and suffering through the centuries.
The persistent and conspicuous conflict between believers’ confession and their conduct – with particular reference to the Afrikaans churches and Apartheid.
The role of science that increasingly provides more and better answers to life’s questions.
The existence of a metaphysical god is not provable and is the product of a psychological process – God was created by humanity.

The existence or non-existence of a metaphysical god is not unequivocally provable from science. Science, history and philosophy can support certain assumptions in this regard. This means that a debate on this matter is not sufficient. One must walk a road with it. It is a road with signposts, but there are also turnoffs where the signposts are not clear. The real conviction follows after a journey on this road. And during the journey there are also temptations to take a turnoff. This works in both directions.

I think Dr du Toit developed on his journey a (perhaps unconscious) preference for a particular destination. Therefore he did not find it necessary to follow a systematic and consistent process. His compass was already set on post-theism as destination. When he had a number of arguments or sentiments in that direction, it was good enough for him. Just as the arguments I have in favour of the existence of a Triune God are enough for me. I have chosen my destination and I believe the destination has chosen me.

The lesson for the church is that it must stay on the right path and not be seduced by ideologies (nationalism, capitalism or whatever). Furthermore, the church organisation must continuously guard against building empires and wanting to become the centre itself. And also not allow customs and traditions to become principles. Here one thinks, among other things, of liturgical customs, dress codes, and so on.

The lesson for Christian believers is that a once-off confession and sporadic thinking about matters of faith is not sufficient. It easily leads to apathy and seduction by other arguments. Faith grows and is strengthened through a life’s journey in a supportive environment such as a faith community. It is not a fairy tale. It is a struggle, but indeed a struggle with a perfect final destination.

Dr Ben du Toit se reis na 'bevryding'Dr Ben du Toit's journey to 'liberation'