Letter to God

There is something heartwarming in this story from the Daily Telegraph in which a six year-old girl, being brought up in a secular household, although attending a church-affiliated school. The children in the school were asked to write a letter to God, asking "How did you get invented?" The little girl, Lulu, showed this to her parents; her dad emailed it to a number of church leaders, getting either no response or a pile of theobabble, but, bless him, Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, sent this reply:

Dear Lulu,

Your dad has sent on your letter and asked if I have any answers. It’s a difficult one! But I think God might reply a bit like this –

‘Dear Lulu – Nobody invented me – but lots of people discovered me and were quite surprised. They discovered me when they looked round at the world and thought it was really beautiful or really mysterious and wondered where it came from. They discovered me when they were very very quiet on their own and felt a sort of peace and love they hadn’t expected.

Then they invented ideas about me – some of them sensible and some of them not very sensible. From time to time I sent them some hints – specially in the life of Jesus – to help them get closer to what I’m really like.

But there was nothing and nobody around before me to invent me. Rather like somebody who writes a story in a book, I started making up the story of the world and eventually invented human beings like you who could ask me awkward questions!’

And then he’d send you lots of love and sign off.

I know he doesn’t usually write letters, so I have to do the best I can on his behalf. Lots of love from me too.

+Archbishop Rowan

Now I know I don't believe that there is a god, and nor do I indoctrinate my children either way - they will find out for themselves, and I'll answer their questions as best I can when they ask them. But for Archbishop Williams to write such a lovely non-in-your-face gentle letter gets him piles of credit in my view. There is no dogmatism there. There is no attempt to stifle the child's wonder or curiosity. There is of course a general assumption that god exists, but I don't expect the Archbishop to come from any other position.

So, Archbishop, thanks for this beautiful response; to me it demonstrates the meaning of a Christianity that people can engage with and use, whether or not they believe there is anyone there to actually write that letter. And well done Lulu!

The Christian Humanist

I've been very quiet on here lately. Sometimes I think I may be beating my head against a bit of a brick wall with this Atheistic Christianity malarkey, and to some extent that may be true. However, it is nice to know that other people have been thinking along similar lines, so I would encourage anyone who does happen to stumble by this little waystation on the road of e-life to head over to http://christianhumanist.net and compare and contrast the offerings there with what you get here on the Church of Jesus Christ Atheist.

Have fun!

Anglican Atheism?

Interesting article from Nigel Farndale in the Telegraph back in March about being an Anglican Atheist. I don't know that I quite agree with everything he says there - much as I respect the Anglican tradition, and regard myself as an Atheistic Christian, all this pox about political correctness trying to stamp on Christians is really a load of old wet. Stop yapping, Archbishop! Grow some nuts. Whatever its history, the UK is a secular country, as it should be - you can't claim special privilege for one religion over another.

Where in the gospels is the verse: "Jesus whinged"? It's not there. Jesus NEVER yapped about feeling that his rights were being infringed; if we take an idealised version of the life of Jesus as a humanist hero (and let's set probable historical actualities gently to the side for a moment, because that's what we all do, theist or atheist), then Jesus stood up for people who were *really* being oppressed - the poor, the needy, the marginalised.

Yes, the wheels fell off the wagon pretty quickly after Jesus left the scene, but we have our model, and the scenes of whingeing archbishops and lamenting columnists are just a little bit embarrassing to those of us who like our Christianity real, meaningful and world-changing.

So, I delicately suggest, perhaps we should move away from this tedious moaning, and promote a Christianity that does not exclude people, be they Muslims, Jews, Atheists, Hindus, Pagans or whatever. The Christianity of Jesus was about the here and now - the Kingdom of God is a metaphor for the establishment of a caring and altruistic society where we all take responsibility to help each other out, whatever their circumstances. Stop whitewashing the sepulchres, people. When you're dead, you're dead. The Kingdom of God is NOW.

And as an Atheist, I have no problem in saying that.

Any comments?

Belated Happy Christmas!

Happy Christmas to one and all from the Church of Jesus Christ Atheist!


It's what Jesus would have wanted, I suppose, but it's *definitely* what Christ wants. At Christmas, it's not so much the birth of Jesus that we are celebrating, but the birth of Christ. To the Atheistic Christian, Jesus functioned (quite possibly entirely unwittingly) to the "Christ" - an example of ideal moral conduct that could form the basis of narratives of human interactions that help us sort out what is important from what is unimportant or even harmful.

Scholars have known since at least the 19th Century that the charming tales of the nativity are not "historical" in any meaningful sense. Yes, Herod was a bastard (even though he was long dead before Quirinius became governor in Syria and administered Augustus's local census that didn't affect Nazareth...), but the contradictory accounts in Matthew and Luke provided the nucleus for a heartwarming mythical memeset surrounding the birth of Christ - the baby in all of us that represents triumph over adversity, new life from the jaws of death, the promise of Spring in the heart of winter. In regard to the latter, we in Northern Ireland have experienced plenty of that over the last few weeks.

But here we are - whether old folks complain about commercialism and rubbish music (I love carols, however) and greedly acquisitive little brats and the whole thing extending back to September - peace, love, goodwill and basic human decency do merit a festival, a celebration. After all, this is what the "Christ" meme is about - it's encapsulated perfectly in the story of the Good Samaritan, but the story, however apocryphal, of a baby born in Bethlehem in the bleak midwinter long ago tells us something much more profound than theists can really appreciate.

Happy Christmas, one and all.

Biblical novels

Parrhaisos has offered us Thomas Mann's magnum opus "Joseph and his Brothers" as a scholarly and challenging re-telling of a classic bible tale. This was in response to my previous post about Joseph - one of the most satisfying stories in the bible, and a novella in its own right. The bible is full of gems like this - does anyone else have any favourite novelisations of biblical stories? Feel free to add them below.

Clive James on Jesus

This is a bit of an oldie - from 2008 in fact. Clive James, popular broadcaster, wit and  bon viveur is an atheist - no surprises there. In this article on the BBC, Clive writes about how someone who does not believe the supernatural elements of the bible stories of Jesus can still derive a great deal from them, and appreciate the ethics and outlook of "Jesus the man".

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...

Atheists for Jesus

Any comments?
http://www.atheists-for-jesus.com

This from Ken Schei:
"I will utilize information from the Bible, the writings of the original Jewish followers of Jesus, the Didache, the so-called "Q Document," and the insights of great minds such as Thomas Jefferson, Jeremy Bentham, and Carl Sagan, to show how the original compassionate religion OF Jesus of Nazareth was distorted almost beyond recognition (by the "self-appointed" apostle, Paul, and his followers) into a "me-oriented" religion ABOUT Jesus the Christ (a caricature made up of bits of Jesus, that were combined with and corrupted by the addition of material from the mythologies of Dionysus, Mithras, and other Greco/Roman Deities). Moderate and Liberal Christians, who wish to actually honor the life and follow the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, need to weed out and totally discard all of the misinformation that Paul, and those who have followed in his footsteps, have added to the original message of love and compassion that was at the heart of Jesus' teachings. Thomas Jefferson (who called Paul "the first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus") did most of the work for us already."

I'm reminded a bit about Richard Dawkins' statement that he is a Christian, albeit a "cultural Christian". Is there a distinction here? I think there perhaps is some difference between these positions and also between these positions and the scenario I'm sketching out with the CJCA. I have a great deal of sympathy for these other positions, but in Dawkins' case, Cultural Christianity is merely that - a cultural wrapping. This does have the advantage that it doesn't become seen as constricting, and since culture evolves, Cultural Christianity is free to evolve also.

Schei seems to present a "back to basics" view that Jesus really was (i.e. the historical Jesus) presenting us with something of value that has since become corrupted. I think where I might differ is that I think the real historical Jesus (insofar as we can say anything about him) seems to have made a lot of mistakes too, and it might be an error to regard him as authoritative. Besides, freethinkers tend to reject authority anyway - we're evidence junkies, and adherence to a "true teaching" will never satisfy. That said, finding out about the history of early Christianity really is a fascinating intellectual pursuit, and can teach us lessons for the future.

The CJCA approach is more to take what we've got right now, where we happen to be, and running with that. Trimming and polishing where necessary, bridging gaps as needed, and even frankly decrying some of the morally unacceptable facets of "Christianity". Effectively, religion forms a narrative. It can't be a strait-jacket, nor do we need to keep the same old rubbish once it is past its sell-by date.

But these views are (I think) not mutually incompatible - I find myself wandering between them (as well as outright anti-religion thinking!) frequently. As ever, dear reader, your thoughts are most welcome.