Posted on 03/21/2015 7:33:01 PM PDT by hiho hiho
“How can you call yourself a Christian, let alone a minister?!”
I get asked that question frequently and the questioner is hostile more often than not. Still, I like to answer it if I believe the questioner is sincere.
Though I self-identify as a Christian and I am an ordained minister in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), I raised eyebrows a few years ago when I posted an article on my website about how my personal beliefs don’t align with those of most Presbyterians.
For example, I believe that:
- Religion is a human construct
- The symbols of faith are products of human cultural evolution
- Jesus may have been an historical figure, but most of what we know about him is in the form of legend
- God is a symbol of myth-making and not credible as a supernatural being or force
- The Bible is a human product as opposed to special revelation from a divine being
- Human consciousness is the result of natural selection, so there’s no afterlife
In short, I regard the symbols of Christianity from a non-supernatural point of view.
And yet, even though I hold those beliefs, I am still a proud minister. But I don’t appreciate being told that I’m not truly a Christian.
Why is that so many people think my affirmations are antithetical to Christianity? I think it is because Christianity has placed all of its eggs in the belief basket. We all have been trained to think that Christianity is about believing things. Its symbols and artifacts (God, Bible, Jesus, Heaven, etc) must be accepted in a certain way. And when times change and these beliefs are no longer credible, the choices we are left with are either rejection or fundamentalism.
I think of Christianity as a culture. It has produced 2,000 years of artifacts: literature, music, art, ethics, architecture, and (yes) beliefs. But cultures evolve and Christianity will have to adapt in order to survive in the modern era.
Many of those paths will be dead ends. As Daniel Dennett once said, the dinosaurs really have not died out because modern birds carry on many of their traits. Similarly, as religions evolve, they may look similar in some respects and quite different in others. You may not even call some of them religions anymore, depending on how you define the word.
I believe one of the newer religious paths could be a “belief-less” Christianity. In this “sect,” one is not required to believe things. One learns and draws upon practices and products of our cultural tradition to create meaning in the present. The last two congregations I have served have huge commitments to equality for LGTBQ people and eco-justice, among other things. They draw from the well of our Christian cultural tradition (and other religious traditions) for encouragement in these efforts. I think a belief-less Christianity can be a positive good for society.
Belief-less Christianity is thriving right now, even as other forms of the faith are falling away rapidly. Many liberal or progressive Christians have already let go or de-emphasized belief in Heaven, that the Bible is literally true, that Jesus is supernatural, and that Christianity is the only way. Yet they still practice what they call Christianity. Instead of traditional beliefs, they emphasize social justice, personal integrity and resilience, and building community. The cultural artifacts serve as resources.
But what about belief in God? Can a belief-less Christianity really survive if God isn’t in the picture? Can you even call that Christianity anymore? In theory, yes. In practice, it is a challenge because “belief in God” seems to be so intractable. However, once people start questioning it and realize that they’re not alone, it becomes much more commonplace.
Since posting my article — and in response to my ministry in general — many have opened up to me that they didn’t believe in God but they liked coming to my church. One young woman, after going through my confirmation class, joined the church. She read her faith statement in front of the congregation. It was a powerful articulation of her social justice commitments in which she added that she didn’t believe in God. The congregation enthusiastically welcomed her, of course.
Personally, even though I don’t believe in God as a supernatural agent or force, many still do. I utilize the symbol “God” in worship. This may be viewed as cheating but since our cultural tradition is filled with images of God, it is near impossible to avoid. As a symbol, I’m not yet ready to let go of God. It is a product of myth-making — I know that — but the symbol incorporates many of our human aspirations. I find that “God” for me is shorthand for all the things for which I long: beauty, truth, healing, and justice. They’re all expressed by this symbol and the stories about it.
Someone quipped that my congregation is BYOG: Bring Your Own God. I use that and invite people to “bring their own God” — or none at all. While the symbol “God” is part of our cultural tradition, you can take it or leave it or redefine it to your liking. That permission to be theological do-it-yourselfers is at the heart of belief-less Christianity.
I understand some Christians may react with hostility and panic to this idea — they already have — but it deserves an honest discussion.
whoa...apologies for the triple post
Forget everything else. My question is ... As a purely practical matter, how could any church hire this knucklehead? How could he lead the church in prayer? In song? What could he preach from the pulpit that would have any credibility?
Imagine a physician who claims, “I am a physician, but I don’t believe in medicine.”
Imagine a math teacher who claims, “I teach middle school math, but I don’t actually believe that 2+2 = 4.”
Well, you get the point. For me this just doesn’t compute.
I am more appalled at his parishioners than I am at him. What are they thinking?
Well, even a stopped clock.
The only thing I agree with is that religion is a human construct.
Jesus coming to seek and save the lost is God reconciling the world to Himself and that is not a religion.
Someone needs to take his iphone away from him . . .
So he worships Satan.
Yeah, it’s basically another thing that the cancer of liberalism has destroyed. They probably don’t even talk about God.
We had an Episcopal minister who took a similar stand. I called him and asked why he still stayed as the minister of the congregation. His answer was essentially for the pay and pension.
What’s the point of even getting up in Sunday morning if this guy is your “pastor?”
Might as well go out, party bard on Saturday and jyst sleep in.
He has nothing worth getting up for.
True. Anyone who holds these opinions should be disqualified from any position as a Christian minister.
##But I don’t appreciate being told that I’m not truly a Christian.##
Well, you aren’t.
I suspect your local body isn’t either or you would be long gone.
To John Shuck
That is the very reason Church nor rituals can save any one as God reads the hearts and minds.
You are not the lone ranger, there have got to be a pretty good percentage of both preachers and congregation who do not believe but only go for gain of some kind.
Some to get filthy rich, others just for a secure income and others for social status.
I believe that is the reason God tells his people to come out of the system of the great harlot in rev 17 and 18.
And after your confession can you deny that I have a good reason for my belief?
They have reduced church to a social club.
I suspect the opposite is true. He was killed, and his later followers decided that this “must have been” part of a larger plan,
Mathew 4
8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
9 And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.
10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
11 Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him.
It is very plain that Jesus could have been king to all of the world, not just Israel if that is what he had of been after.
John 18:36
36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
Also why do you think he said three swords were enough? it is plain that with only three swords his apostles would not be too willing to fight but would be enough of a threat to make the guards willing to negotiate.
If the apostles would have had no weapons they would have all been taken, not just Jesus, Jesus did not want any of his apostles taken nor killed.
If all of his apostles would have had weapons it would have been a bloody battle, Jesus may or may not have been taken and some of the apostles would likely have been killed.
Any of these scriptures alone shows that Jesus did not have the king ship of Israel in mind.
Luke 9:27
But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God.
Luke 17:21
21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.
We can see right there that Jesus does not have his mind on earthly things but heavenly things.
If you know that every word coming out of his mouth is something he doesn't believe, then why listen? It absolutely baffles me.
But those were all written afterward. And of course they would contradict the idea, they were written by someone struggling to reconcile what they hoped would happen with what actually did happen.
But those were all written afterward. And of course they would contradict the idea, they were written by someone struggling to reconcile what they hoped would happen with what actually did happen.
You might be able believe that the prophecy concerning the Jews returning to Israel in the latter days was written after they returned, but I can`t because I was aware this is what the Bible said long before it happened.
Daniel 12:4
But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.
Most of the knowledge increase has been in the life time of people living on earth today.
Depending on how old you are either your parents or grand parents were using horses to work with and get around with as mine were even after I came along, they could not even imagine flying from here to Paris France.
Just becau8se the Sunday school teachers make the story of David and Goliath sound like a fairy tale does not make it a fairy tale.
You are making assumptions on what he is actually "preaching" Chappy.
Check this out, from his last sermon posted online:
Emily Dickenson said the only commandment of Jesus that she could be sure to keep was this one: “Consider the birds.” She could do that. She could be attentive, amazed and enthralled by birds. The via positiva.Not hardly a Christian sermon.If we are going to do any good for our species and for Earth, we must have a healthy, active and practicing via positiva. Spend a few moments each day and be amazed. Fyodor Doestoyevsky, for whom we named one of our dogs penned this in his novel, The Brothers Karamazov:
“Love all God’s creation, both the whole and every grain of sand. Love every leaf, every ray of light. Love the animals, love the plants, love each separate thing. If thou love each thing thou wilt perceive the mystery of God in all; and when once thou perceive this, thou wilt thenceforward grow every day to a fuller understanding of it: until thou come at last to love the whole world with a love that will then be all-embracing and universal.”
The via positiva is an exuberant love for life, for others, for self. One of my favorite hymns is in the Unitarian hymnal. It expresses the via positiva:
Just as long as I have breath, I must answer “Yes” to life.
Joseph Campbell, the great mythologist, wanted to imagine the first self-conscious thought. When did self-consciousness arise? I don’t know. Maybe hundreds of thousands of years, perhaps even a million years ago, at some time deep in our past, one of our ancestors had the first self-conscious thought.
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.