There is a lot of sense in the article, and I think I broadly agree. I also think it can serve as a useful touch-point for those of us who don't believe in gods, demons, angels or messiahs to engage with those who still do in a meaningful, educational and collaborative way. After all, the question of belief (to the unbeliever) is spectacularly less important than setting the basis for an ethical and mutually-beneficial society and global outlook. Indeed, if you look at the Jesus portrayed in the Synoptic Gospels, you see a picture of a man opposed to religious dogmatism, antithetical to religious belief as the admission card to "The Kingdom". I've mentioned before that this is the somewhat lost meaning of the parable of the Good Samaritan - belief is unimportant. It is how you interact with your fellow humans that counts, and your relationship with whatever metaphysics you find to your taste is your own business.
Where I would perhaps depart marginally from Clive is over the implication that this "Jesus the man" is necessarily cognate with "the historical Jesus" - we simply do not have enough evidence to judge, and to be realistic, there is every evidence that Jesus was a fairly observant Jew, and did of course believe in God. He was not just a teacher of ethics; he had a religious axe to grind too - and these are separate things. However, the important thing is that we have been left with a series of stories that we can use, expand upon, midrashise, fill out, crop, mix and match as we like (hey, that is what Christians have been doing for millennia!), and just because we atheists have realised that there is no God behind all this, that should not disqualify us from adopting it if we wish, and parsing it through our Christianity Compatibility Layer.
Jesus the Nazarene presents a rich narrative resource, backed up by centuries of infrastructural investment (much of it with a rather unattractive history, but we are where we are) and a wide cultural familiarity. If we are honest and open, there is no reason why Atheists cannot be Christians too. I suggest...
I think I'd agree with you. But it creates a dilemma of definition, doesn't it?
ReplyDeleteIf we are say that a Christian can be a person that has learned a valuable, moral lesson from Jesus (whichever one, the historical, the mythical, the Christ Jesus, whatever) then that makes the definition pretty wide.
I personally love it when a word has many meanings. But it might upset some die-hards that want to define Christianity specifically, or own the word all to themselves.
I don't call myself a Christian because people too often jump to one of its meanings that I don't use to define myself. Know what I mean?
Hi Andrew,
ReplyDeleteBut it might upset some die-hards that want to define Christianity specifically, or own the word all to themselves.
Yes - that's precisely why I think it is useful to incorporate the category of Atheistic Christian (or Christian Atheist). It has a certain shock value that does indeed upset the die-hards, and that can only be a good thing.
I don't call myself a Christian because people too often jump to one of its meanings that I don't use to define myself. Know what I mean?
Absolutely, and that is the risk, I suppose. It means that (for me anyway) the atheist bit needs to be emphasised.
In Northern Ireland, Catholics don't recognise Protestants as "true Christians" and vice versa - no harm done if we add another group of outsiders, if that group is already considered alien anyway ;-)
Does 'Christian' not mean 'follower of Christ'?
ReplyDeleteDepends! "Christian" means a lot of things, and does not necessarily commit a person to believing in gods or resurrections. Stick around; please browse around the blog, and see what you think - you're very welcome.
ReplyDeleteChristian - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian
ReplyDeleteChristian - http://churchofjesuschristatheist.blogspot.com/2009/04/welcome.html
ReplyDelete:-)
I think a key element of this is that while Jesus can teach us a lot of things, he is not an "authority". In Freethought there is no such thing as authority - anything can and must be challenged. In this blog I am suggesting (no more strongly than that) that Jesus the Nazarene provides a useful model or narrative that we can usefully apply to life. Indeed, I would suggest that it's only via an atheist lens that the full value of the Jesus story becomes apparent. Tell your friends! :-)
Using the name 'Christian' are you not acknowledging that Jesus of Nazareth was in fact the 'Christ'?
ReplyDeleteAha - you need to read the "about" stuff :-) There is no such thing as "Christ" other than as a label *we* confer:
ReplyDelete"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."