[Glaswegian]

It is unsurprising that the Reverend Jim Rigby came under attack recently from conservative Christians over his decision to allow the atheist academic Robert Jensen to become a member of his Presbyterian church in Austin, Texas. These outraged conservative Christians shrieked at Rigby: 'How can you let someone join the church who cannot affirm the divinity of Christ? Does nothing matter to you Liberals?'

For conservative Christians, belief in Jesus's divinity should be central to one's identity as a Christian and anyone who does not embrace this belief is not a true Christian. Liberal Christians, on the other hand, suggest that instead of viewing Jesus's divinity as literally true this idea should be understood as a myth, a metaphor, a symbol, and the like. Thus, liberal and conservative Christians are located at opposite ends of a broad spectrum of belief regarding the divinity of Jesus with lots of Christians who are undecided, confused or indifferent about the matter falling in between.

The liberal Christian position that Jesus's divinity is a myth derives from the widespread agreement among New Testament scholars that Jesus himself did not claim he was God incarnate, and that this claim was put into his mouth by the apostle Paul and the authors of the gospels. For New Testament scholars, Jesus did not regard himself as divine but only as a prophet who felt it was his mission to proclaim the end of the existing order of things and the imminent establishment of God's kingdom on earth. The fact that God's kingdom failed to materialise shows that Jesus was certainly not God incarnate. After all, if one of the alleged attributes of God is omniscience then how could Jesus as God have been so spectacularly wrong about the coming kingdom? For New Testament scholars, Jesus's 'divinity' should be understood as the outcome of a process of myth-making whereby Jesus the failed prophet was successively transformed into 'Jesus the Saviour' and into 'Jesus the Messiah' by Paul and the gospels' writers, and ultimately into 'Jesus the Second Person of the Trinity' by councils of bishops at Nicaea and Chalcedon several centuries later.

For liberal Christians, Christianity 'is not about grovelling before a saviour, it's joining in the work of saving our world' (Reverend Rigby). Thus, liberal Christians argue for the need to give up the mythical idea of Jesus as a divine being who came into this world to atone for humanity's sins, and to focus on the latter's moral teachings instead. Jesus, in other words, should be seen purely as an inspirational figure who exemplified how Christians ought to live in the world and behave towards others, and nothing beyond this. For liberal Christians, it is the emulation of Jesus as an ethical role model which should be central to Christian identity and not belief in the myth of Jesus's divinity.

The reason why Reverend Rigby wishes to shift the focus of Christian identity away from belief in the myth of Jesus's divinity, and why Jensen as a 'Christian atheist' wishes to engage critically with this myth, is because it is a myth which has been, and continues to be, both dangerously divisive and pernicious in its effects. The following are just a few reasons why this is so:

The myth that Jesus was God incarnate has been used over the last two millennia as the fundamental justification for anti-Semitism in the Christian world. Why? Because according to the New Testament the Jews did not just kill a man. No. They committed the worst crime imaginable. They killed God in the form of Jesus. Because they were held to be collectively responsible for this most awful and heinous of acts, the Jewish people have been systematically used by Christians throughout the ages as the scapegoat par excellence on which they could project and discharge their accumulated feelings of guilt, inadequacy and self-loathing. As the 'murderers of Christ' no punishment has been deemed too terrible for Jews by Christians historically.

The myth that Jesus was God incarnate has given rise to conservative Christianity's posture of superiority vis-a-vis all the other world religions. Why? Because this myth entails that Christianity was personally founded by God himself, and therefore every other religion by implication is inferior or just plain wrong. The supercilious conceit of this position is manifested in the Christian dogma Extra ecclesiam nulla salus - 'Outside the church there is no salvation'. Thus, in 1960 the Chicago Congress of World Mission could state with self-righteous arrogance: 'In the years since the Second World War more than one billion souls have passed into eternity and more than half of these went to the torment of hell fire without even hearing of Jesus Christ, who He was, or why He died on the cross of Calvary'.

The myth of Jesus's divinity serves as a powerful basis for the subjugation, oppression and slander of women. The myth that Jesus was God incarnate is - if you'll pardon the expression - a 'godsend' for the Christian male chauvinist as it provides him with the perfect rationalisation for his hatred and fear of women. The male chauvinist Christian blockhead 'reasons' thus: If God chose to incarnate as Jesus and not as a woman then this is proof at the 'highest level' that the male is superior to the female. As a woman writer once tersely put it: 'When God is male, the male is God'. Right, fellas?

I'll refrain here from describing how the myth that Jesus was God incarnate was used as an ideological device for sanctioning the oppression, exploitation and extermination of 'heathen' colonial peoples in every corner of the globe by European nations from the 16th century onwards - out of fear of making you feel sick and depressed. Suffice it to say, that the amount of conflict, horror and suffering which the myth of Jesus's divinity has directly or indirectly caused to be inflicted on the human race over the last two thousand years is beyond calculation.

The furore over Reverend Rigby's acceptance of a 'Christian atheist' into his church could only have occurred in America out of all the Western nations today. Here in Europe, for example, the doctrine of Jesus's divinity is increasingly seen as an archaic embarrassment and protestant churches are awash with Christians who no longer take it seriously. And the time has long passed when a protestant minister who openly expressed his disbelief in this 'article of faith' raised so much as an eyebrow in the media or among the general public. Indeed, the whole 'Christian atheist' thing is somewhat reversed on this side of the Atlantic. Thus, we have now reached the position in Europe that when someone says they are a conservative Christian it is generally viewed as a sign of downright bad taste on their part. For example, among those masters of social etiquette - the French - to declare oneself 'a believer in the divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ' is worse than simple bad manners: it is an outrageous act, a grand faux pas as crass and unforgivable, say, as deliberately defecating oneself in a crowded elevator trapped between floors on a hot summer day.

Regards

James

[Fweethawt]

Quote

For example, among those masters of social etiquette - the French - to declare oneself 'a believer in the divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ' is worse than simple bad manners: it is an outrageous act, a grand faux pas as crass and unforgivable, say, as deliberately defecating oneself in a crowded elevator trapped between floors on a hot summer day.

And that, is the way it should be.

========================

A "Christian Atheist" ?!?!?

What the heck are these people smokin'?

[Glaswegian]

If Jesus was nothing more than a man then this means, of course, that he was no saviour. And therefore no personal salvation through Jesus is available to the Christian. This is why it is unbearable for many Christians even to entertain the possibility that Jesus's divinity is a myth. The Christian who has believed in this myth for years - for a whole lifetime in countless cases - has invested so much of himself in it, so much mental and emotional energy in the form of sentiments, feelings, wishes, hopes, dreams, yearnings, longings, etc. that he is under enormous psychological pressure from within to keep believing it. Can you imagine a Christian who has given so much of his being over to this myth having to admit that this was done in vain, that the sacrifice he has made of himself to it was for absolutely nothing, and that he was a complete fool for believing in it for a single moment? Such an admission would be wholly intolerable to him. Therefore, he is compelled to keep believing in the myth. Yes, better for him to keep doing that than for him to suffer the pain and personal humiliation that would result from recognising Jesus's divinity for what it is - viz. a myth manufactured centuries ago by the Church and certain Jews with a political agenda.

But there is a further reason why the Christian is driven to believe in the myth of Jesus's divinity. Christians provide this myth with monstrous new life from one generation to the next because it is rooted in something appalling which lies at the core of their being. And the appalling thing which lies there is this - A big thumb-sucking infant who is terrified of existence and death, and who will cling desperately to anything for succour no matter how absurd and risible that thing may be. Yes, even something as absurd and risible as the myth of Jesus's divinity.

[lkcollins]

Quote

The myth of Jesus's divinity serves as a powerful basis for the subjugation, oppression and slander of women. The myth that Jesus was God incarnate is - if you'll pardon the expression - a 'godsend' for the Christian male chauvinist as it provides him with the perfect rationalisation for his hatred and fear of women. The male chauvinist Christian blockhead 'reasons' thus: If God chose to incarnate as Jesus and not as a woman then this is proof at the 'highest level' that the male is superior to the female. As a woman writer once tersely put it: 'When God is male, the male is God'. Right, fellas?

This is so very true..funny that I should read this today..I just came back from shopping and pass a church with one of those hideous signs. You know those signs, the ones that are suppose to either inspire or make you feel quilty. This particular sign read " A man's integrity is a woman's security" What a crock! This is the crap that is still being fed to to gullible masses..I was sicken. I also saw another sign a little further down that said "Without faith, you cannot love god".

[Misterspock1]

I used to always think the term "Christian atheist" was an oxymoron, because I always thought there was no way you could be a Christian and not believe in God or the divinity of Jesus. Now that I think for myself I can see how that would work. I also now find it ridiculous that fundy Christians say that Jesus committed no sin because he was/is God, and also say that he was/is God because he committed no sin.

And you don't have to get me started on the sexist thing. My dad last night showed his disapproval of a woman hired on by the church to be a music minister. He, however, refused to call her a music minister, insisting on calling her "an interim music director" (emphasis his). And if you want to look at historical examples, just look up the witch hunts, the execution of Joan of Arc, and the countless other times when the Church has used women as scapegoats to fix its spiritual or political problems.

[Young Mother Atheist]

There are some very good thoughts in this article. Glaswegian, you are an excellent writer! I know some people who believe in this "liberalized" type of Christianity. They are member of the Unity Church.

However, I don't know where I stand on all of that. I used to think that Jesus, regardless of being God or not, taught some really valuable things. However, in Mark, which is the most basic of all gospels we have (because it is the earliest, at least of those included in the Bible), Jesus doesn't really appear to be anything but a secretive, impatient asshole obssessed with his own agenda and healing people for attention. When I re-read Mark after becoming an Atheist I was able to see this. The other gospels are the ones that contain all the love and kindness stuff. But then there are passages in those to about Jesus not bringing peace but a sword but then to turn the other cheek. I think the message of Jesus is very confusing and not very clear after looking back over all of it. Therefore, I don't know how people can still think Jesus is a good person to follow even as a myth because he (supposedly) taught so many different things. It just depends on which account you read and on which day of his stay on Earth. The people who believe in Jesus as a myth must just ignore the passages that don't make them feel good. If they think the people who wrote the New Testament made Jesus into the Son of God, how can they trust anything else that is said in those books?

While I think any liberalism brought to the religion is good because it will benefit humanity, it still doesn't make sense to me. To believe in everything Jesus taught according to the gospels is to believe things that contradict one another. I think there are other better leaders to follow than Jesus, who message is more clear and actually recorded by the leaders themselves.

I suppose that, as it was said above, some people need to cling to the myth even in a liberalized way because they can't just completely let go of it. While I know this is just the way things are, I wish that more people would trust the ability they have within themselves to do good things in their lives and in the lives of others. I think everyone has the power individually to make any inferences about life that Jesus or any other leader made, but I could be wrong.

Anyway, the idea is very interesting. Hopefully, the belief system will continue to evolve until it is not accepted anymore as anything other than myth. That is what happens to most religions with time, though there will always be a few who follow it to the grave as the only truth.

[Antlerman]

Glaswegian, on Jun 16 2006, 12:04 AM, said:

If Jesus was nothing more than a man then this means, of course, that he was no saviour. And therefore no personal salvation through Jesus is available to the Christian. This is why it is unbearable for many Christians even to entertain the possibility that Jesus's divinity is a myth. The Christian who has believed in this myth for years - for a whole lifetime in countless cases - has invested so much of himself in it, so much mental and emotional energy in the form of sentiments, feelings, wishes, hopes, dreams, yearnings, longings, etc. that he is under enormous psychological pressure from within to keep believing it.

Bravo on a well written article! I think this is an encouraging sign that Christianity may join itself to the rest of humanity by relaxing its exclusivist insistence on adopting outdated Church dogma.

One reason to add to your thoughts quoted above are that people who have traditionally defined their faith with a particular language are becoming confronted with the need to take personal responsibility to move beyond the language of dogma into the great grey areas of life to find themselves a new language. This is very difficult to do and many people are just plain comfortable where they are at. Fundamentalism always grows when Modernity is on the rise. It's a reactionary move to slow that change, but is unsustainable if you are a participant in modern society.

Christian Atheist! I was wondering when that day might come. Boy that has got to rattle the sensibilities of the uber-fundies!!

[Antlerman]

Young Mother Atheist, on Jun 17 2006, 06:03 PM, said:

While I think any liberalism brought to the religion is good because it will benefit humanity, it still doesn't make sense to me. To believe in everything Jesus taught according to the gospels is to believe things that contradict one another. I think there are other better leaders to follow than Jesus, who message is more clear and actually recorded by the leaders themselves.

I suppose that, as it was said above, some people need to cling to the myth even in a liberalized way because they can't just completely let go of it. While I know this is just the way things are, I wish that more people would trust the ability they have within themselves to do good things in their lives and in the lives of others. I think everyone has the power individually to make any inferences about life that Jesus or any other leader made, but I could be wrong.

Liberals do not view the Bible as the Word of God. They see it as containing the words of "God", or words of spiritual principles. Infalliblity and innerancy are rejected by them. In reading Mark, as in your example, they could see the words of the earlier Christian community struggling for it's survival being put into the mouth of Jesus. Does this tell us them about God? Sure, in the sense that it tells people about how humans express these sorts of emotions and ideas in the midst of this sort of struggle. The words are not binding in any sense, but have relevance by drawing out of them what may be meaningful and applicable to modern circumstances. It's what mythology does.

I understand well your sentiment about people finding in themselves the power to become a higher ideal, but I am coming to recognize the need for languages that transcend the mundane language of terms and definitions of everyday life, that allow thoughts to break beyond the borders of language. Music takes me beyond the mundane, for others it can be poetry, art, or mythology. "A dog", creates a list of concepts around that word that shapes our understanding of the world. "A flying dog", creates an entirely different set of concepts that transcend the mudane.

Mytholgy is also a binding force of a culture and can offer a greater sense of community. Think Christmas lights and decorations each year - all mythology. The danger is when the myth becomes dogma. That is what is needing to change, a more open understanding that is inclusive of the whole of humanity in a modern global society.