Posted on 06/28/2008 9:38:51 AM PDT by annalex
The title for this post sounds like an oxymoron, and, of course, it is. How can one be both an atheist and a Christian? Again, I am wanting to push the understanding of the one-versus-two-storey universe. In the history of religious thought, one of the closest versions to what I am describing as a “two-storey” world-view, is that espoused by classical Deism (the philosophy espoused by a number of the American founding fathers).
They had an almost pure, two-storey worldview. God, “the Deity,” had created the universe in the beginning, setting it in motion. He had done so in such a way that the world could be described as directed by His Providence, but not in any sense interfered with after its creation. Thomas Jefferson produced a New Testament, wholly in tune with this philosophy. He expunged all reference to miracle and kept only those things he considered to have a purpose in “moral teaching.” The creator had accomplished His work: it was up to us to conform ourselves to His purposes and morality - which were pretty indistinguishable from natural law. If you read the writings of the period it’s much more common to read Providence where a Christian might put God. Many modern evangelicals mistakenly read such statements as Christian.
Functionally, other than having some notion of an original Creator, Deists were practical atheists. The God Who created had completed His work. Ethics were as much a matter of scientific discovery as any other principle of physics. They believed in something they called “God” or “Providence” but only in a very divorced sense. It would be hard to distinguish their thought from that of an atheist except that they clung to an idea of God at least as the initiator of all things.
I have here introduced the notion of “practical atheism,” meaning by it, that although a person may espouse a belief in God, it is quite possible for that belief to be so removed from everyday life, that God’s non-existence would make little difference.
Surprisingly, I would place some forms of Christian fundamentalism within this category (as I have defined it). I recall a group affiliated with some particular Church of Christ, who regularly evangelized our apartment complex when I lived in Columbia, S.C. They were also a constant presence on the campus of the local university. They were absolute inerrantists on the subject of the Holy Scriptures. They were equally adamant that all miracles had ceased with the completion of the canon of the New Testament. Christians today only relate to God through the Bible.
Such a group can be called “Biblicists,” or something, but, in the terminology I am using here, I would describe them as “practical atheists.” Though they had great, even absolutist, faith in the Holy Scriptures, they had no relationship with a God who is living and active and directly involved in their world. Had their notion of a God died, and left somebody else in charge of His heaven, it would not have made much difference so long as the rules did not change.
I realize that this is strong criticism, but it is important for us to understand what is at stake. The more the secular world is exalted as secular, that is, having an existence somehow independent of God, the more we will live as practical atheists - perhaps practical atheists who pray (but for what do we pray?). I would also suggest that the more secular the world becomes for Christians, the more political Christians will become. We will necessarily resort to the same tools and weapons as those who do not believe.
Christianity that has purged the Church of the sacraments, and of the sacramental, have only ideas which can be substituted - the result being the eradication of God from the world in all ways other than theoretical. Of course, since much of modern Christianity functions on this ideological level rather than the level of the God-Who-is among-us, much of Christianity functions in a mode of practical atheism. The more ideological the faith, the more likely its proponents are to expouse what amounts to a practical atheism.
Orthodox Christianity, with its wealth of dogma and Tradition, could easily be translated into this model - and I have encountered it in such a form. But it is a falsification of Orthodoxy. Sacraments must not be quasi-magical moments in which a carefully defined grace is transmitted to us - they must, instead, threaten to swallow up the whole world. The medieval limitation of sacraments to the number 7 comes far too close to removing sacraments from the world itself. Orthodoxy seems to have declared that there are 7 sacraments solely as a response to Western Reform and Catholic arguments. In some sense, everything is a sacrament - the whole world is a sacrament.
However, if we only say that the whole world is a sacrament, soon nothing will be a sacrament. Thus the sacraments recognized as such by the Church, should serve not just for pointing to themselves, but also pointing to God and to everything around us. Holy Baptism should change all water. The Cross should change all trees, etc. But Baptism gives the definition: water does not define Baptism. Neither do trees define the Cross. Nor does man define Christ. Christ defines what it is to be human, etc.
The more truly sacramental becomes the Christian life, the more thoroughly grounded it is in the God-Who-is-among-us. Such a God is indeed, “everywhere present and filling all things.” Our options are between such a God - as proclaimed in the New Testament - or a God who need be no God at all for He is removed from us anyway.
At the Divine Liturgy, before approaching the Communion Cup, Orthodox Christians pray together:
I believe, O Lord, and I confess that Thou art truly the Christ the Son of the living God who camest into the world to save sinners, of whom I am first. I believe also that this is truly Thine own most pure Body, and that this is truly Thine own precious Blood. Therefore, I pray Thee: have mercy upon me and forgive my transgressions both voluntary and involuntary, of word and of deed, committed in knowledge or in ignorance. And make me worthy to partake without condemnation of Thy most pure Mysteries, for the remission of my sins, and unto life everlasting. Amen.
There is not a single hint of a distance between us and God. At this point, having prepared for communion, having confessed our sins, we stand at the very center of the universe, before the God Who Is, before the God with Whom Moses conversed on Mt. Sinai, and we receive His true Body and Blood.
Such realism of a first-storey character makes bold claims about the nature of the God whom we worship and how it is that we relate to Him. It’s removal from the “end of miracles” deism of some Biblicists could not be more complete.
There is a dialog that may take place between Christians and atheists. But there is, prior to that, an even more important dialog to be had, and that is with the practical atheism of Christians who have exiled God from the world around us. Such practical atheism is a severe distortion of the Christian faith and an extremely poor substitute for the real thing.
Richard John Neuhaus has written frequently of returning the Church to the public square. I think the problem is far deeper. In many cases we have to speak about returning God to the Church. In cases where practical atheism is the faith of a goup of “believers,” their presence in the public square makes no difference. Who cares?
But within the Orthodox faith, God cannot be exiled from our world no matter how men try. He has come among us, and not at our invitation. “While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8). He is already in the Public Square as the Crucified God who is reconciling the world to Himself, whether we like it or not. The opposite of practical atheism is to do the only thing the Christianity of the first-storey can do: keep His commandments and fall down and worship - for God is with us.
Such a group can be called “Biblicists,” or something, but, in the terminology I am using here, I would describe them as “practical atheists.” Though they had great, even absolutist, faith in the Holy Scriptures, they had no relationship with a God who is living and active and directly involved in their world. Had their notion of a God died, and left somebody else in charge of His heaven, it would not have made much difference so long as the rules did not change.
If you want to be on the Catholic Theology for non-Catholics list but are not on it already, or if you are on it but do not want to be, let me know either publicly or privately.
I am at a different computer, adn may not have the up-to-date ping list. If I missed you, I apologize.
Prevuiously posted:
On Salvation Outside the Catholic Church
The Great Heresies
SALVATION PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE
JUSTIFICATION IN CATHOLIC TEACHING
Hermits and Solitaries [Ecumenical]
THE PRIESTHOOD DEBATE
RIGHTEOUSNESS AND MERIT
A Well-Rounded Pope [Ecumenical]
A Monastery to Last 1,000 Years [Ecumenical]
Explaining Purgatory from a New Testament Perspective [Ecumenical]
In the Crosshairs of the Canon [How We Got The Bible] [Ecumenical]
'An Ordinance Forever' - The Biblical Origins of the Mass [Ecumenical]
Beginning Catholic: Church Authority In Scripture [Ecumenical]
Beginning Catholic: Catholic Tradition: Life in the Spirit [Ecumenical]
bump for later..
Is this open or ecumenical?
read later
(Ulster Gunman): What religion are you?
(Traveler): I'm an atheist sir.
(Ulster Gunman): Catholic atheist or Protestant atheist?
Open.
When I post myself, I post open or caucus (on internal Catholic matters). The ecumenical threads on my list are posted by others.
I ask everyone to maintain a calm academic tone, stick to the topic, and generally behave as adults. I do not, however, expect anyone to sort out the “ecumenic” distinctions.
:)))
That is not entirely accurate; I posted a couple of ecumenical threads on consecrated life, trying to avoid injury to personalities. My inclination is to stick to open, though.
Thanks, just like to respect the wishes of the thread starters on the Religion forum. I know how touchy some of these threads can be. (not saying I am going to be rude, but if you wanted this Catholic only, I would respect that..)
Wonders for Oyarsa Says:
Fr. Stephen,Wonderful post. I agreed with nearly everything you said, but was a little puzzled at this paragraph:
I would also suggest that the more secular the world becomes for Christians, the more political Christians will become. We will necessarily resort to the same tools and weapons as those who do not believe.
It seems that, as one moves towards a more wholistic view of the world, one is more inclined to see the political questions of the day as relevant to the gospel of Christ. Issues of the care for the earth, third-world debt, international justice, etc. become even more relevant as we realize just how much God’s loving presence fills our world, and how creation itself groans for the loving reign of the sons of God. That doesn’t mean we use the same weapons and tools as unbelievers, but it does mean we consider “political” issues as within the bounds of what the church can speak to.
Sophocles Says:
[...] I liked your speaking of some of our nation’s Founding Fathers as being Deists and not Christians. I, too, as an Evangelical would read “Providence” and assume I was hearing “God”. I assumed they were synonymous.On another, separate note, it should be noted that many of our Founding Fahters were also Freemasons which would explain their opting for Deism, where the Supreme Being remains in shadow and has not become flesh, to be known amongst us as one of us.
Perhaps an interesting topic to pursue would be that if such is the case of our Founding Fathers, can America be considered to have been a “Christian Nation?”. As an Evangelical I used to believe(and preach) this but now, as you alluded to the use of believing in Concept rather than Person, I believe this may be closer to the truth.
[...]
fatherstephen Says:
Sophocles - excellent post! Thank you.Wonders of Oyarsa - Yes, I think living on the first-storey with God does makes us far more aware of many things. But much that is political action or action by political bodies is only secular action, use of the power of the state for the ends of the state. Caesar will always be Caesar, I believe. We should care deeply about the things that matter, so deeply we do something and the something very likely should be more than vote. Though I do not advocate not voting. But voting and the Kingdom of God are not the same thing. When I think about these matters, I think about Christians becoming the answer rather than using the coercive power of the state to make someone else be the answer. Interestingly, one of the things I always liked best about St. Francis, was that during one of the Crusades, he simply took passage to the mideast and went to the court of the Sultan and witnessed to him about Christ. The Sultan listened and dismissed him, but did not kill him. It would be like looking for Osama Bin Laden in order to forgive him and tell him about Jesus. I can’t help but like such people and think there is more there than we allow.
When Christians have become a serious political force in the various states they have inhabited they have as often been coopted by the state as they have had an influence on the behavior of the state. As my Archbishop says, “On the whole, in Church State relations, we have not done so well when we were the state Church.”
Interesting example - British evangelicals, led by W.Wilberforce, outlawed slavery in the British realm decades befoe the American Civil War. But the slaveholders in America, were almost to a man, professed evangelical Christians. John Woolman, a Quaker, had preached dynamically and prophetically in the South about the coming disaster unless repentance was forthcoming. No repentance came from people who should have known better, and their land was reduced to rubble and has been better than a century recovering if it has yet recovered in some areas. Of course, these were two-storey Christians. I just can’t think of a lot of great examples of one-storey Christians who were political activists. There’s more conversation to be had…
Not at all, this is a sharpest criticism of Protestantism I have seen in a while, and besides, the author is Orthodox. Here's true ecumenism for you...
phronegmatically yours...
he's also an idiot. "Providence" may have been highjacked by Deists later, but when very Protestant, Christian Roger Williams named his settlement Providence, that was not his concept. When the 2nd Continental Congress amended Jefferson to include the phrase " with firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor," they weren't atheists. This is anti-American propaganda by Father Stephen, and where's he from?
The priest who wrote this is, I believe, a convert and a well respected and prolific writer.
This is a supremely Orthodox piece and points up two things, I think. First, it is an example of the difference between and Orthodox and a Western phronema and second, it shows why it is hard to live in the Western world, supporting Western political systems and policies and remain an Orthodox Christian. Sometimes, no always but sometimes, Fr. Stephen astonishes me given his background.
But Jefferson did edit the NT to remove things he didn’t believe actually happened...right?
Deists can have Jefferson in my book, though some dispute that. The Declaration was subjected to such severe editing by the committee of the whole on 7/2 and 7/3/1776 that Franklin had to comfort his young colleague with the story of the habberdasher’s sign.
Divine Providence is in itself, of course, a Christian concept. I don’t think Fr. Stephen implied otherwise. His concern is that with desacralization of Christianity, its opposite is very nearly reached.
I don’t know the Father personally; Kolokotronis thinks he is a convert to the Orthodox faith.
then what do you propose this implies?
“I don’t know the Father personally; Kolokotronis thinks he is a convert to the Orthodox faith.”
He was, if I recall correctly, an Episcopalian priest.
It points to the fundamental conflict between authentic Christianity — Latin or Eastern alike, and modernity. Protestantism and secularism are two attempts to reconcile what cannot be and it is now clear to many that they failed.
The Western Civilization has to be rebuild brick by brick, just like St. Anthony did once. Mechanically attaching a secular wing to a church, and calling is “society” is a naive project.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.