Welcome to the Church of Jesus Christ Atheist.
Jesus Christ was an Atheist?? You may be shocked, but don't be. Stick with us, and we'll explain where this is going.
There is no question that the man, Jesus the Nazarene, believed in God. However, the notions that have been attached to this man (a human like all of us) are largely fictional, and overlain with multiple layers of theistic interpretation, that they combined many elements of Jewish and Greek religious thought into a new religion, Christianity, in the centuries following the death of Jesus.
Nowadays, a large percentage of people in "Christian" countries do not believe in God; they do not believe (obviously) that Jesus was the "Son of God" (or divine - the two terms are not interchangeable). They do not believe that he was born of a virgin, performed miracles, or rose from the dead.
However, many people still do believe these things, and they have set up remarkable organisations called churches to promote their worldview, and to bring their message to the community. Oddly enough, many members of these churches are themselves atheists or agnostics, but enjoy the community life of the church, and like the people that they meet on a Sunday. Yet deep down many such people feel a little bit hypocritical for standing up and singing hymns, while under it all, they don't believe.
Sound familiar? The CJCA may well be for you.
Are we a church? No - not in the normal sense. We don't (often) meet up in real life, separately from the usual churches. Our goal is to develop a compatibility layer, enabling free-thinking people - atheists, agnostics, humanists - to engage with Theistic Christians and to participate fully in the life of churches in an ethical and responsible way, without having to short-circuit their brains into "believing" what they know to be untrue.
It turns out that there are many elements of Christianity that reflect deep areas of human ethics; many parables and events from the bible and Christian history, many characteristics of Jesus the Nazarene that can be adapted and adopted by those who do not believe in god, and used as narratives to illuminate and enhance the human condition.
In doing so, it is we who confer the honour "Christ" on Jesus the Nazarene, and use his story, acknowledging its shortcomings, as both a parable and a paradigm for our lives and our self-examination. Not in dogma. Not as a short-circuit to science or reason. Not as a set of "beliefs", but as a scaffold upon which to tell our own stories, and to build a better world for all - theist and atheist alike.
If this strikes a chord, why not join with us - comment on this post, and follow the blog! Part of what we will be trying to do is reinterpret the bible in an atheistic way - not to change it or deny its history, but to learn lessons, and reclaim Jesus the Nazarene as an icon for Freethought.
I say "our" - I really mean "my". Forgive my spurious pluralisation - I like to kid myself that there are other people who think the way I do - I may be deluded in this supposition...
ReplyDeleteAn interesting thought-experiment, this creation of the compatibility layer for atheists to engage in the life of the (Christian) denominations. As I read through the posts (incidentally, with a desktop computer running Ubuntu) it raised a serious question: why do I generally feel no inclination to "translate" the language of religion into something more modern, something more scientific?
ReplyDeleteThinking this through, I feel it could be a question of those philosophical ideas I have absorbed. On the one hand, I approach the language of religion as a manner of speech that cannot be evaluated with a scale of "true" and "untrue", and because of this I don't need to translate it into something "more true", with the help of, say, cognitive sciences. But on the other hand, I tend to approach all the manners of speech, all the different discourses, in the same way, so transferring one clause between different modes of speech does not seem to be really necessary for me personally.
Additionally, I find it fun and profitable to suspend my disbelief with the mythical narratives (which include the whole Bible); playing by the rules, so to speak, in the context of the liturgy. So you could say that I "short-circuit" my brain into "believing", even if this happens only momentarily. The archaic power of the narratives, I fear, would break down somewhat if they were consistently "translated" into some other mode of speech.
So, my own compatibility layer, so to speak, could be located one-step removed from yours, as even before I come into contact with the language of religion I have already made some necessary adjustments for coping with this language.
Then again, if one's philosophical framework is different, and I understand that many atheists and agnostics have a rather "realistic" approach to reality, then your placement of the compatibility layer looks like a useful idea to preserve all that good we find in the religions.
Hi Timo,
ReplyDeleteThanks for dropping by. Your points are good ones, and I would stress that this is perhaps a thought experiment, but it's one with perhaps a glimmer of purpose.
What you describe as your own compatibility layer rings very true for me; the only thing is that a/ I'm an argumentative sort (and can't keep my trap shut in bible studies etc), and b/ I'm both a scientist and communicator, and I find it hard to adopt the "suspend belief" mode, even momentarily - I'd wake up during a prayer or something and feel like banging my head off the pew in front. I would also feel less engaged (not that I *am* that engaged at the moment - I don't go to church!) if I couldn't approach the whole thing with 100% 24-7 honesty.
I'm not (!!) accusing anyone else of *dis*honesty - we all handle these things in our own way, and even believers have doctrinal differences, and will not necessarily agree with everything that comes from their pulpit (this is not a newsflash ;-). I guess my point is that there is a range of "atheistic feeling" within churches, and I don't think the resources have been really developed to help some of the subgroups thereof.
Not every atheist feels the need to join the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or to become *anti*religion. And I think the "emerging church" thing gives a lot of rational people the heebie jeebies big style. Call it a gap in the market ;-)
Thanks again - I'm embarrassed to say that I didn't know about your blog until I linked to it from John Loftus. You're doing a Good Thing!
Yes, I think it is a good thing to start talking about these issues openly - the simple knowledge that there are other people who think hard about these things is encouraging in itself, and may give some ideas for adapting oneself and one's thoughts to the language of one's religion, or whatever the problem is perceived to be.
ReplyDeleteI understand that you will have some charity cycling to do, hopefully you will gain some fresh perspectives on the trip to continue the building of the compatibility layer for the non-traditionalist "believers".
Thanks Timo - I think part of the perspective that I come from is that getting everyone to *agree* is simply not possible; that being the case, we need to ask whether it is even *desirable*. But that's not leaving the door open to PoMo piffle - I do think we need to be rigorous, and accept the fact that it is possible to be wrong; where this is demonstrated, we need to be prepared to discard wrong ideas. Does that mean severing links with churches? I don't necessarily think so - after all, we still need a forum for discussion, and there are people in churches that would welcome a slightly more challenging conversation than they are perhaps used to.
ReplyDeleteI accept that a lot of these ideas are half-baked - indeed, that's part of the whole idea. Atheism is a broad church(!!), and I feel that a process of wider engagement is possible, without compromising the essential commitment to systematic doubt and scepticism. But nothing is sacred - all can be challenged.
I can respect your perspective... As a former Pastor, I am now at the place where I call myself an agnostic Christian... I'm still in transition, but have put up a blog to discuss my doubts of Faith and Christianity http://discussionsofdoubt.blogspot.com/
ReplyDeleteThanks - Dan
What a novel idea!! Maybe the name should be The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Atheists, :=). I completely agree with your viewpoint on the whole Jesus/God interpetations. I believe he was a political/religious dissenter and pissed of the religious leaders of his times and that is why he was murdered. The whole concept of God thoroughout the ages has been used to interpret the world when humans had no science to understand the nature of the natural world. Humans used the idea of a God/Man with ultimate powers to control populations. I like to think of God as nothing more or less than physical energy pure and simple, although extremely complicated as evidenced in quantum mechanics. Humans have a need, for some reason beyond my comprehension to have a God/Man to be in control, to have human characteristics, to dole out punishment like a parent would to their children. Magical thinking in terms of the world is a thing of the past(well it should be), it's like when a child learns Santa Claus is a concept and not a real man. It doesn't mean we should stop doing the wonderful good deeds that the whole idea of Santa and giving to others. That is how I view the Jesus story and many of the other parables in the bible, good values to live by. The whole God arguement is rhetorical at best, who's God is the "real" God or my God is better than your God. Mankind throughout the ages and still today use this God theory to kill, abuse, discriminate, enslave and seperate us from each other. God was made in man's image not the other way around!!! The evolution of humans is still in it's infancy and until we truely understand, life here on earth is short and to live each day to it's fullest. We many never know all the answers or know how it all began or where will end up, for isn't it the ride that is truely important. Peace my friend.
ReplyDeleteHo ho ho ho u r such a prize dumbass man. 1 person = "a church" like "Christian" = "atheist". Talk about suspension of belief.
ReplyDeleteWhy, thank you, Anonymous. You raise a fine point - this is a blog from one person (me), so calling it a "church" is a tad grandiose. And I am proud to win some sort of prize for being a "dumbass" (what a quaint Americanism!). But the situation remains that between 10 & 15% of Christians do not believe in god. Which is interesting, is it not?
ReplyDeleteI have to admit that I also have a surprising belief. I call myself a "Christian", but am actually a sort of non-believer in "Christianity" and an actual believer in "Christ". Does that make me a "non-Christian" believer in the divinity of Christ, I wonder?
ReplyDeleteAs a "non-Christian believer in Christ" I have long suspected that many "Christians" or "pew warmers" are actually secret atheists, so to have a means by which they can "come out" is a good thing, I suppose. After having dumped their pretence at belief in God, they then may also dump their "Christianity" (all the rules, regulations, sectarianism and guilt along with the cultural trappings and psychology) in the hope they will then come round to seeing what it is all really supposed to be about.
What I am really saying is that my view is probably the opposite of what is being presented here. What has grown up in the centuries after the death (and after the other thing, dare I say it) of Jesus is not so much a "mythologising" of the supernatural, but the very opposite - an attempt to subsume the reality under the religious. That's why people like me get just a wee bit piddled off when we are categorised with "religious" people when attacked by atheists.
It would be really great to see "Christians" coming out and admitting that they were unbelievers (like the Pope, perhaps?), so at least they are the ones who would take all the flak for being religious, and leave the rest of us in peace.
This site to me, sounds like it is leading into worshiping a man called jesus whether he believed in a god or not, but just in case he happened to be real and you are trying to escape judgment into hell, which I do not believe exists.
ReplyDeleteI personally am opposed to worshiping anything or anyone who cannot be proven to be real or does not exist or a god who exists based upon a person's faith.
I see no point in calling one's self an atheist, but yet love to read what the scriptures have to say or love to go to church just to sing the hymns.
I think an real true atheist should oppose all religious books and try to abolish the act of worship, after all, before the white colonists came over here to america, a bible a church, a black slave, nor the english language had never been on american soil.
The people who lived here thousands of years before the white man and his bible came over here lived happily and content without any need or use for a bible god or a demigod savior.
And they were human beings, not savage infidels as coined by the bible humping white colonists.
I have just discovered this blog and I look forward to considereing the postings. My first comment is regarding the title of this blog/church. The term "Christ" literally translates the Hebrew "Messiah", one annointed with the Spirit of God. If athiests use this term they must mean something else. What do Christian atheists mean by using a term that has an original meaning referencing God? I want to use the word "Christ" but mean by it the "charisma" of Jesus.
ReplyDeleteThanks Paul - one of the points I try to make is that the term "Christ" can (and has to) change its meaning once we more fully appreciate what's going on. I have no problem with this label (well, I do have some problems actually), but others may well prefer to adopt a different one, or reject labels altogether. At any rate, "Messiahs" and "Christs" are just labels, and we have a fair bit of latitude to play with these concepts to find something that may be useful (or not as the case may be). I look forward to hearing more of your thoughts - you'll have noticed the blog is a bit quiet these days...
ReplyDeleteA 'Jesus' who is a god/god man or the like makes no sense. Why would 'god' sacrifice himself to himself to save his creations from the 'sins' god allowed them to have?
ReplyDeleteHowever a man who sacrifices himself to recreate the relationship between god and the Jews is a very old, seminal human story, repeated over and over again. It's the story of the individual who sacrifices for the family, tribe or village -- or nation. From Horatius:
"And how can man die better than facing fearful odds,
For the ashes of his fathers, and the temples of his Gods."
This also eliminates the resurrection as possible. It isn't Jewish, a messiah never resurrects, and it isn't a sacrifice.
A myth about a Jew who did this is believable. The version Christianity has now is almost all Greek with all the magical elements expected of a Greek god. It makes no sense to us but the Greeks would have lapped it up the way we enjoy Batman. That's where almost everything comes from, as many have concluded mostly from Isiah or the Septaguint version of it larded over with Greek myths.
It must have been a very insignificant story indeed for Philo of Alexandria to have not mentioned it, let alone the many other writers of the time who ignored it also. It took a long time, perhaps two or three hundred years for the Greek versions of the myth to be written down.
In my opinion there's very little 'Jesus' to worship - and even the name is probably changed from whatever the source was. So it is with mythic heroes, Robin Hood, King Arthur and William Tell.
Weak stuff indeed.
Dear Author,
ReplyDeleteJust stumbled upon your blogs - and just a few days back on the concept of Christian Atheism. I plan to read and learn more from your articles, such point of views and ressources seem rare and hard to find so I hope this message finds you motivated to keep going!
Edit : I've just laid my christian life's story below, don't know why except I probably needed to express it... Hope it's not boring.
At age 15, after a youth of sunday school up to my Confirmation, I decided to leave the Church and '"convert" to atheism, because I couldn't satisfy myself with the incapacity of this form of faith to answer some essential/existential questions, and because all that was preached always seemed to evaporate from people's minds beyond sunday and the church's grounds.
It's been 10 years and since then I've been torn between my need for a very Christian spirituality, principles of humanism and compassion that I grew up with and want to believe in, and my refusal of any mystical or alienating practices and beliefs...
So it's been a tough ideological and spiritual journey, during which I even delved into buddhism and meditation, until a eureka moment when I typed "christian atheist" in Google... I really think I'm attached to the Christian point of view and culture and can"t stray too far from them so it's really refreshing and motivating to have finally found your end of the spectrum! Although I might suggest that meditation is very similar to prayer and a christian atheist may find great benefit to it.
All this to say it's great having found this blog and I think you're definitely onto something important and meaningful.
Godspeed
(couldn't resit ;-)
Axel
Dear Axel,
ReplyDeleteThanks for coming by! I appreciate all comments, and even though this little blog is fairly low-traffic, I hope people find it of some use.
I would like to see a more constructive engagement developing (and indeed I think we are seeing the stirrings of that) between "real" Christianity and Atheism - and indeed the parallel processes in Judaism, Islam and other religions.
When we start to see religion as a framework for development, rather than a dogma to be defended and bulwarked against change, then I think we'll be on to something.
You're right about meditation - maybe we need more of that... I'd welcome your comments on any of the other posts :-)