One of the most insightful and interesting articles I have read in recent months appeared in the January 2010 edition of the Portland Monthly. In the article, Christopher Hitchens was interviewed by Marilyn Sewell, the recently retired minister of the First Unitarian Church of Portland. Sewell is a former teacher and psychotherapist and the author of numerous books, Sewell, over 17 years, grew Portland's downtown Unitarian congregation into one of the largest in the United States. She describes herself as a liberal believer.
Mr. Hitchens describes himself, among other things, as an atheist and has been identified as being a prominent exponent of the "new atheism" movement. He and fellow high profile contemporary atheists Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett have often been referred to as "The Four Horsemen" and the "Unholy Trinity".
Hitchens is a secular humanist and anti-theist,
and describes himself as a believer in the philosophical values of the Age of Enlightenment. His main argument is that since the concept of God or a supreme being is a totalitarian belief that destroys individual freedom, free expression and scientific discovery should replace religion as a means of teaching ethics and defining human civilization. Christopher Hitchers' 2007 book God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything has made him arguably the nation's most notorious atheist.
I will quote just a segment of the interview. The interview, in its entirety, is worth a read or a listen.
Sewell: The religion you cite in your book is generally the fundamentalist faith of various kinds. I'm a liberal Christian, and I don't take the stories from the scripture literally. I don't believe in the doctrine of atonement (that Jesus died for our sins, for example). Do you make any distinction between fundamentalist faith and liberal religion?
Hitchens: I would say that if you don't believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ and Messiah, and that he rose again from the dead and by his sacrifice our sins are forgiven, you're really not in any meaningful sense a Christian.
Why does it take a non believer to tell us such an obvious truth? Why is it that we, the people who make up this thing we call the church, have such a difficult time defining what it means to be a Christian? I believe the problem is less theological and more sociological. It has more to do with the cultural moral "good" that drives our culture. It is the ultimate good of being open minded, accepting and acceptable that drives our religious and intellectual community to have such a fuzzy understanding of what it means to be a Christian. It is that, much more than our understanding of God, that drives us and, I believe, confuses us.
Mr. Hitchens has made what I would call an astute observation of the obvious. Christianity is founded on the belief that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, lived on this earth, died on a cross to pay the price for our sins and, on the third day, rose from the dead. Not believing in these things means you are not, "in any meaningful sense a Christian." Instead of getting our shorts in a bunch, or entering into a long winded philosophical discussion, or calling him narrow-minded and stupid (Which he obviously isn't.) perhaps our response should be "Duh, no kidding."
Some of the basic beliefs of Buddhism are:
- The Buddha is our only Master.
- We take refuge in the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha.
- We do not believe that this world is created and ruled by a God.
Frankly, I don't believe those things: For whatever reason or reasons. I can't say those are really good or bad things, I just don't believe them. Thus, I can tell you, I am not a Buddhist. That was easy.
There are many things about Islam that are problematic for my belief system. These are just a few:
- On the Last Day, resurrected humans and jinn will be judged by Allah according to their deeds. One's eternal destination depends on balance of good to bad deeds in life.
- Warriors who die fighting in the cause of God are ushered immediately to God's presence
- "Enemies of Islam" are sentenced immediately to Hell upon death.
Since I don't believe these things I would not even consider considering myself Islamic. Not a liberal Muslim or a conservative Muslim. Just not a Muslim.
I may consider myself to be a moral person; a good person; a nice person; a godly person. But since I reject some of the very basic tenets of different faith systems, I don't consider myself to be a Buddhist or a Muslim. They don't seem to mind and I don't mind.
So, why is it, I wonder, that there are such a large number of people around the world who reject some of the very basic tenets of the Christian faith and yet insist on being labeled and accepted as Christian? Many of these people would be deeply offended by what I have written and would condemn me as being a narrow-minded fundamentalist.
I confess. I don't get it. I don't believe what people of other religions believe and I am not offended that they don't accept me as a Buddhist or Muslim. I don't think they should. Truth is, if they did accept me as a Muslim or a Buddhist, I would wonder what they were thinking.
My only guess as to why I have come to such conclusions is that I am a Christian who thinks too much like an atheist.
Copyright © 2010, William T. McConnell, All Rights Reserved
9 comments:
I totally agree with Hitchens. The only way Xtianity works is if you totally believe what the bible says.
It is alleged by fundies that the bible is the word of god. To cherry pick things that sound good to you and discard things that are offensive or unbelievable, is to say that god is wrong and can only be believed sometimes. This should get you a ticket to Lava Lake Resort. If you totally believe what the bible says you could be considered a nut case.
It must be a dilemna for those who have lived a faithful life to god and then have to wonder why they did. Having said all that, I now say I'm glad I'm an atheist.
Aspentroll
Outstanding Bill. Right on the mark!!! <")))><
Bill Darby
Very well done. My father was an atheist whose best friend was a Presbyterian minister.
Soundra
Jeff Gill commented on your status:
"Posted on this story myself a couple of weeks ago, and heard relatively little comment then. It's a touchy question in mainline/oldline circles -- the assumption is that there's good belief (our side, believing in the essential goodness of humankind and effective governmental programs to help the poor and needy) and bad belief (those fundies who didn't go to really progressive seminaries, and who are morally & politically more conservative). The touchiness is that we turn more to academia and the cultural crowds for affirmation, saying over and over "we're not like the bad belief people," and what I find myself saying to fellow clergy, to their persistent disbelief, is that the "cool kids" still think that we're more like Pat Robertson than them, until we become post-Christian non-believers.
Hitchens was quite candid and clear in helping me confirm what I've seen play out over and over -- we can't nuance our way into being accepted by the cool kids as Christians."
OK, I'll be the cranky disagreeable one here! :)
The doctrine of substitutionary atonement (Jesus died as a sacrifice for our sins) was a latecomer. And it's only one of several valid, Scripture-supported interpretations among Christians of what Jesus' death on the cross was all about. So I disagree with Hitchens.
I also disagree that Christianity, or any faith, can be boiled down to "right belief." That puts the onus squarely on us. It takes the emphasis off two things that are also important: our actions, and God's grace.
"That was an interesting read...I'm going to have to read the whole article. When you said, "she describes herself as a liberal christian" I found myself thinking- what on earth is that? I did not like the answer at all!"
Comments from FaceBook
Jeff Gill
Posted on this story myself a couple of weeks ago, and heard relatively little comment then. It's a touchy question in mainline/oldline circles -- the assumption is that there's good belief (our side, believing in the essential goodness of humankind and effective governmental programs to help the poor and needy) and bad belief (those fundies who didn't go to really progressive seminaries, and who are morally & politically more conservative). The touchiness is that we turn more to academia and the cultural crowds for affirmation, saying over and over "we're not like the bad belief people," and what I find myself saying to fellow clergy, to their persistent disbelief, is that the "cool kids" still think that we're more like Pat Robertson than them, until we become post-Christian non-believers.
Hitchens was quite candid and clear in helping me confirm what I've seen play out over and over -- we can't nuance our way into being accepted by the cool kids as Christians.
Patty Jenkins
I did read, and not confused, angry nor do I think you are right. I have asked myself what would you call someone who believes that Jesus is the son of God and lives their life in service to him but agrees w/the liberal Christian? (my favorite nun at school is in the same boat)
Tom Smith
Right on the mark, Bill. Many people admire Jesus as a "good teacher" and believe he had a "wonderful perspective on God," but that he was not essentially different than you or I. My question is, if he was delusional about himself, why would you consider him a good teacher? Why would you devote your life and treasure to following him? Why not just invest your time and your money in a human organization that doesn't use the majority of your giving to pay a pastor to keep telling, week after week about a somewhat misguided teacher who lived 2000 years ago?
More Comments from FaceBook
Catherine Morningstar
agree totally, Bill!
Cathy Questa Conly
That was an interesting read...I'm going to have to read the whole article. When you said, "she describes herself as a liberal christian" I found myself thinking- what on earth is that? I did not like the answer at all!
Rick Ewen
Interesting and thought provoking. Having read it, I think Mr. Hitchens should go around telling everyone, "I'm an atheist, thank God."
Wayne Majors
Hi Bill, Interesting. I wonder though, if you set any collection of doctrine as a litmus test of who is really Christian and who is not, have you not created a creed that is used as a test of faith? IMHO, Christians are those who actually follow Jesus and that has very little to do with creeds. Somedays I am a better Christian than other days. It has more to do with my way of life than my beliefs. As for understanding what it means to be a "liberal Christian", look up the definitions of both words in the dictionary and you'll have it! :-) The confusion comes when liberals and conservatives define each other according to their prejudices.
Tom Smith
The founders of our movement did not reject all doctrine as a litmus test -- just extra-biblical, human-made tests of fellowship.
It is not anyone's humble opinion, but what the Bible says that defines a Christian -- Christ-like actions accompanying the gift of salvation. Receiving this gift is as simple as, "confessing with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believing in your heart that God raised him from the dead. For it is by believing in your heart that you are made right with God, and it is by confessing with your mouth that you are saved." (Romans 10:9-10)
Wayne Majors
Tom, I did not say anything about "all doctrine". The "human made tests" are when a group writes out its statements of faith and then insists that anyone who disagrees is not Christian. We can all quote scripture, but each of us has our own opinion/interpretation/revelation about the meaning of what we read. When I say, "IMHO", I am attempting to say that you can disagree with me and still be my brother/sister in Christ. I acknowledge that I am a fallible human who sometimes misunderstands, and only God holds all truth. In the end, God will judge who is truly Christian and who is not. I believe it is our job to love, not to judge the sincerity of the faith of others. You may disagree with any or all of that and still be my brother in Christ.
Tom Smith
I agree that God is the only righteous judge -- our job is to love and positively influence.
My point is simply: why the aversion to definition? Every organization -- non profit or otherwise -- that refuses or is incapable of understanding who they are (and are not), and who they are trying to reach will fail miserably. And the answer cannot be, "everything and everyone"
Wayne Majors
Tom, My aversion is not to definition but to exclusion and the accompaniment judgment. I agree that we have to be able to define who we are as Christians, but at the same time, we have to acknowledge that our definition may not be the only valid one. Other people can understand their relationship with Jesus differently and still be Christian. I don't think we are called to be "the decider" of who is and is not Christian. And... You can certainly disagree with me on that and still be my brother in Christ. :-)
More Comments from FaceBook
Gina Zompero-Boatright
Bravo Bill! You either believe the things that make you a Christian or you don't. It's not hard. People should stop trying to "fit into the club" by making their own rules. There are no rules. He was born, He died and He was raised from the dead. Christian! If you don't believe it, not Christian. It doesn't mean you don't believe there was a great prophet named Jesus. That is a historical fact. You can even follow his teachings but not believe He is the son of God. But to be a Christian, you need to believe the above statement. Ok, I'm done now. :)
Post a Comment