I came across the comment below while surfing the Internet today. The author wrote this comment in response to a blog post that explained, briefly, how the Church developed its doctrine of Jesus’ divinity. I’ve come across this commenter a number of times over the years. In fact, I once wrote a post in response to a post he wrote. When you read his comment, you’ll see why it astonishes me.
I find it astonishing that a professed Christian will
a) admit that the church “had to come up with” a distinctive theology to set it apart from other religions,
b) acknowledge that the Jesus-myth fits the pattern of myths that preceded it, sometimes by millenia,
c) acknowledge that it took several centuries for the Church to figure out what it believed was going to teach about Jesus,
d) state that Christianity required a divinity of sufficient stature to replace the “divine” Roman emperor as an object of worship,
yet continue to cling to some sort of Christian faith. I honestly cannot fathom his reasons for doing so. On the one hand, he seems to understand that Christian dogma is completely fabricated. On the other hand, he apparently thinks that the religion offers some sort of meaningful- what? philosophical? ethical? spiritual? – foundation for his life. Also, a) and b) above contradict each other. The Church’s response to the need to distinguish itself was … to re-package the same old myths and change the characters’ names (and hope no one noticed?). How was that distinctive?
I submitted the following comment at the site; since I don’t know whether it will be moderated out of existence, I’ll post it here:
Now, I’m curious about two things:
- Whether my comment will ever see the light of day
- Whether Graeme will respond to it
I hope both of those things happen, because I really am interested in his answers to my questions. They won’t compel me to re-convert to Christianity, but they will, perhaps, give me some insights into how liberal Christians think.
– the chaplain
Vinny
October 23, 2010 at 1:49 am
I don’t see think that this is that much of a problem insofar as a liberal Christian may believe that God revealed the complete understanding of Christ’s work over time through the sometimes messy processes of the Church and its council. It is only the conservative Christian who must insist on complete continuity with the doctrines taught by the Apostles.
MythicSushi
October 23, 2010 at 2:02 am
It’s never been clear-cut just exactly what Christians are supposed to believe about the words of the biblical Apostles, anyway. If St. Paul lost his temper and condemned something, such as “Tentmaking is such a pain, no one should ever become a tentmaker”, and this statement was recorded in the Bible, would it be considered a commandment of God?
It might make sense to try and follow the words of Jesus, who is supposedly God, but it doesn’t seem logical that his followers had some kind of understanding or “inspiration” from God that the rest of us have missed out on.
the chaplain
October 23, 2010 at 9:47 am
Vinny:
Many liberal Christians may well think as you described. One problem with such thinking is that it leaves a lot of room for cherry picking – people are free to believe “according to their own inner lights,” regardless of whether their views are internally consistent and coherent. Another problem is that the cherry picking makes it too easy to disown people who say and do embarrassing or atrocious things: “well, that’s not what Christianity (or Islam) is really about.” It’s the flip side of how conservatives claim that anyone who doesn’t adhere to their strict codes “is not a real Christian (or Muslim).”
I have a question about “God revealed the complete understanding of Christ’s work over time.” Is that revelation now complete (you used the past tense) or is it still unfolding?
MythicSushi:
“It’s never been clear-cut just exactly what Christians are supposed to believe about the words of the biblical Apostles…”
Even after the canon was allegedly established in the 5th century, people continued arguing over it for centuries, and the Protestants eventually discarded several of the books that had been approved 1,000 years earlier. To this day, the Catholic Bible includes several books that are not included in the Protestant Bible. It makes a lot of difference to one’s practice of faith if one views the Bible as a somewhat inspired but flawed collection of human reflections on god, or as the inerrant, infallible repository of god’s revelation to humankind.
Moe
October 23, 2010 at 12:40 pm
I think the chaplain’s question is still not answered, since the values liberal christians hold are largely held by, say, secular humanists, Unitarians etc., who share aspirations to an ethical life that adheres to a moral code. So why be a ‘Christ-ian’?
Vinny
October 23, 2010 at 3:34 pm
As a former “cafeteria” Catholic who drifted into agnosticism, I have no problem with liberal Christians cherry picking according to their inner lights as long as they are wiling to acknowledge that they are doing so. I want them to disown the jackasses who say and do atrocious things in the name of Christianity even if they must be less than completely coherent when they do so. My only problem is conservatives who cherry pick according to their inner lights but try to claim that their conclusions are normative for everyone based on an objective analysis of the evidence.
In answer to the question about whether the revelation is complete, I have no idea.
In answer to the question of why bother being a Christian if the values are no different than the secular humanist’s, I guess some people have a hard time letting go of that particular crutch.
Moe
October 23, 2010 at 3:40 pm
[some people have a hard time letting go of that particular crutch]
That’s something I understand entirely. And they are the ones exploited by the public moralizers. Whom I loathe.
Kagehi
October 23, 2010 at 4:06 pm
I would say that its a good bet this isn’t going to see the light day. Which is why I am not bothering to post on the thread his post is on, in reply to the first one posting, who complained that the original article makes a lot of claims, but doesn’t explain them. Seems pretty obvious to me. To explain something, you need facts, based on facts, which are in turn based on factual things. Since what we have is ancient people making assertions, then making assertions on those assertions, to which later people simply asserted X is true, while Y isn’t, because I say so, all the way from top to bottom, there are no *facts* on which to found any part of the argument. QED, its hardly possible to explain why one version, or another, makes any damn sense, never mind the authors own assertions about it.
desertscope
October 24, 2010 at 1:32 am
If you are not willing to follow this road to its logical conclusion, please continue to believe that Noah kept dinosaurs on his magic boat a few thousand years ago. If any part of The Word is “allegory” (that’s the liberal Christian euphemism for “bullshit”) then perhaps all of it is.
I advise squishy “liberal Christians” not to stray down that path, as they often have just enough belief left in them to feel self-hatred in response to their dwindling faith.
the chaplain
October 24, 2010 at 6:09 pm
Hey, my comment is now up at the Rubicon (about 6:00 p.m. EDT, October 25, 2010) . I’ll be interested in seeing if Graeme or anyone else answers my questions. I’ll keep you posted.
PhillyChief
October 25, 2010 at 10:04 am
What has become trendy is valuing Jesus the person and taking what you want from his alleged sayings, much like you would for other figures such as Confucius, Socrates or Sun Tzu. Going that road means no divinity, which then kills any claim to an absolute authority when trying to impose Christian morality. It also, in my opinion, kills Christianity as a religion and reduces it to one character’s philosophy (I say character because we don’t know if the Jesus character was a person or not).
Frankly I’m fine with that. I don’t think the Jesus sayings are especially good though, but then for one to advance them they’d have to do so on their own merits like any other ideas.
So why does someone do this, and better yet, still call themselves a Christian? I don’t know. Blame multiculturalism, blame an increase in critical review of the Christian bible and skeptical challenges to Christianity, blame the self esteem movement for encouraging individual views and their equal validity, blame whatever you want.
the chaplain
October 25, 2010 at 11:13 am
Philly:
I agree that following the purported teachings of Jesus and discarding the divinity, miracles, etc., reduces that sort of Christianity to a philosophical position, akin to Christian Humanism or Christian Atheism, that is quite far afield from the way the religion has been presented historically. Like you, I’m okay with that, but hope that such people
a) realize that this is what they’re doing and don’t try to impose their philosophy as the most enlightened or progressive or absolutely correct option available (my impression is that they are generally a pluralistic, inclusive bunch), and
b) are willing to carry their positions to their logical conclusions: no heaven, hell, eternal life, etc. – human life ends at death. Jesus was not god and he did not rise from the dead and secure eternal life for the faithful (they can’t – logically – discard miracles, etc., and cling to this one exception).
I think a) is relatively easy to do, but b) may be a sticking point for many people. I don’t know that there’s no heaven, hell, afterlife, etc., but I don’t see any evidence of such things, and I’m willing to accept the implied consequences of their absence and live accordingly: this life is all I’m going to get. I don’t like the idea that I will one day cease to exist, but there’s nothing I can do to change the matter. I’ve just got to suck it up and deal with it.
I also think some people, maybe Graeme is one such (I don’t know that, it’s just a guess), claim the label “Christian” primarily as a social identifier. Notwithstanding significant doctrinal/philosophical differences between themselves and other members of their sects, their Christian groups are still their tribes. Maybe they just are not able or willing to break off from their tribes for social, emotional or relational reasons.
Moe
October 25, 2010 at 11:32 am
[claim the label “Christian” primarily as a social identifier]
That’s very insightful. And I think you’re right for a large swath of American christians.
Ahab
November 13, 2010 at 7:42 pm
Perhaps this person is a “secular Christian”, analogous to secular Jews?