The Christian Humanist

I came across the idea of Christian Humanism today as mainstream evangelicalism is not doing it for me...  I did a little internet research and tried to figure out what it meant and starting identifying with it until I came across your site. I have a few questions:

1. Are you representative of Christian humanists in your atheism or agnosticism?

2. I recognize the intelligence inside of you, but it seems you have made the same grave mistake that many have before you: that Jesus was just a man. Have you encountered the C.S. Lewis passage about this? I am sure you have and so I ask your thoughts on it.

3. What is the difference between your view and secular humanist view, apart from the attempt at emulating Christ (which I think is awesome that you recognize the beauty of Jesus' way)?  Secular Humanism seems just as good and many men have done well underneath it, one of my favorites is Emile Durkheim.

Thank you for your thoughts and considerations!  Peace and Blessings to you!

My response:

Thanks for contacting me.  I will try to respond to your questions.

Thank you for your quick response... I am sure you have had many heated arguments with many Evangelicals and I am not here to do that, just curious. It is good to note that you chose the term for yourself and seems to apply here very well in that all the definitions fit (except I think you are generalizing Humanism to mean no God), but it seems as though there is another movement going on with the same exact title that doesn't share the same thoughts (as I am sure you know about) and I was just trying to differentiate.

I agree that Lewis' argument in the case of the deity of Jesus is a little too neat, but there is a logic there that can't be beaten. It reminds me a bit of Bishop Berkeley's philosophy. I know you have read the books and have much higher degrees then I, but what do you make of the assumption that Jesus didn't leave the option of good teacher open to us? As both of us are trying to be imitators of Christ in action and truth, how do we reconcile the claims he and his followers made about himself and his deity. In fact, I recall a man calling Him good teacher to which he said (as you know) "Why do you call me good, don't you know that only God is good?" So it is my conjecture that you have had to rationalize scripture and I am not picking a fight but asking how you came about being able to legitimately do that? Even that Jesus believed in God and called himself that adds problems to my reasoning in this area...

Some things I have been thinking about that I would like your opinion on: What do you think of Karl Marx? I absolutely love the critique on capitalism and it seems to fit well with the teachings of Jesus and the early Christ-followers? His attack on religion is one thing that can easily be explained away by his infatuation with Hegel and Feuerbach.

My response: 

I have had very few emails from Evangelicals, surprisingly, and while some are angry or mean-spirited and I ignore them, most are serious along the lines of "wow, I didn't know anybody had these concerns but me, I'm glad I'm not alone" etc.  I enjoy vigorous discussion so long as it is genuine dialogue. Anyway, the discussion can't be moved forward to grounds of proof, but only as confession a la Martin Luther, "Here I stand, I can do no other."  Most theological discussions misfire because they involve preferences rather than proofs, e.g., I like chocolate, you like vanilla.  It is silly to argue the premise "chocolate is better than vanilla" and the person who does so shows himself a fool.

As for what options Jesus left open to us, we run smack into the problem that what we know about Jesus we get through the eyes of witnesses writing things down and telling stories of what they remember long after the fact.  Your comment about what Jesus left open to us assumes that we have his actual words, which I do not believe and requires taking certain passages with a literalness that is not supported by the history of those early documents.  The Gospels were not assembled until quite some years after the time of Jesus, and were composed in different places for different reasons using what stories and fragments that existed at the time in earlier documents that we no longer have.  They were not history, they were "gospels" which outlined from a particular perspective what they believed and wanted to communicate to others.  Whether Jesus actually called himself "God" is precisely what is at issue here; what we know is that there was a view at a later time that he was the Messiah, and other views that he was god himself, and later followers made those claims about him but I am not sure how much mileage we can get out of that.

Karl Marx wrote a very interesting and penetrating analysis.  Like most political theories they sound better on paper than in practice.  We are currently in the midst of an argument nationally about "capitalism v socialism" that entirely misses the point.  There is no pure socialism anywhere, just as there is not now nor has there ever been a purely capitalist nation.  Socialism and capitalism are theoretical constructs that describe theoretical economic systems but in the real world we have learned that all economic national structures fall somewhere on a continuum between those polar extremes.  We are essentially pragmatists.  Throughout history the US has had policies that move from the middle toward one or another of the poles, for example, recently the Bush administration moved in the direction of socialism with a bailout plan for banks that put public money into private enterprise, and the current Obama administration has expanded upon the policy with its bailout. 

I tend to lean more toward the socialist end of the spectrum and I think that is where Jesus would come out if he were a 21st Century figure….so I agree with you about Karl Marx.

********

Your site is a breath of fresh air. Being fully human is a concept most people are unwilling to face.

Jesus of Nazareth was a man that tried to show us our true selves in discovering meaning through relationships with one another.

He was our example of what it means to be fully human because he was as well.

********

I find myself agreeing with 96% of what I find here; it is a refreshing change to find someone who thinks (almost) like I do. You speak of an ideology that values "the rights of the individual (my interpretation)" over the 'rights' of "the rest of human society"--and "self over community."  Only way to go, sir--don't fight it. There is no 'social contract' save that which is imposed at birth by sheer force of numbers. As you are well aware, a billion people saying the same wrong thing doesn't make it a right thing.

I won't rehash all the flaws of this type of thinking (and please don't ever assume I have any use for thinking that resembles standard 21st century republican dogma)--I let Rand do most of my speaking for me.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but a lot of what you write contains the subtle implication that you would be willing to see tax dollars going to 'bad' use now be put to a better use in view of the ethics you espouse. Isn't that still coercion/slavery? That somehow extortion is justified if it's a 'good' idea? I like the theological ideas you have--but your political leanings seem as tyrannical as any Roman despot.  Just my view.

My response:

Thank you for your comments.  Periodically I hear from adherents of Ayn Rand.  Your choice of Rand and my choice of humanistic values are both preferential.  There is not much point in arguing the issue.  I like chocolate ice cream, you like vanilla.  It's not a logical argument to say therefore "chocolate is better than vanilla."

I deny your premise that the social contract is either arbitrary or coercive; therefore I cannot concede your conclusions.  Of course I want tax dollars to support the social good.  What I don't want is tax dollars supporting the life style of the wealthy, bailing out financial institutions, providing tax money to private entities whether General Motors or Blackwater, and the rape and pillaging of our common air and water by those who trash the environment in their view of their self-interest. 

The philosophy of Ayn Rand is an interesting discussion for a philosophy class, but it is not practical as an operating philosophy because it fails to recognize man's inability to distinguish between enlightened self-interest and pure selfishness and it provides underpinnings for the latter.

I would argue in response that the social contract is inherent in the nature of human community, man is essentially social and does not function well in isolation, he is oriented toward community, just as others in the ape family of which he is a part.  That's biology.  Your philosophical preference for the individual over society is behind much that is wrong in the world of today, from the selfishness (self interest gone amuck because it does not recognize its limits) of Wall Street and George Will to the view that there should not be social controls on the behavior of individuals even when that behavior impacts others.

********

[From England]  I am a Primary School Teacher, trying to sort out my beliefs in a system based around Church of England.  I have, for most of my life, believed in the teachings of Jesus, but have questioned certain scientific elements, historical reliability, and the church as a source of controlling power. How do I find out more about Christian Humanism? It seems to make sense to me.

My response:

The Church of England has a diversity of views -- many traditional, but an increasing number of more progressive thinkers.  It might be useful for you to get hold of Bishop John Robinson's book, Honest To God for the views of a Church of England bishop in the more progressive tradition.  I think you are on the right track in your thinking.

It is difficult for me to point you to specific things you can read, because Christian Humanism is a rather diverse collection of ideas all centering around a focus on humanity and concerned about our neighbor, in the humanistic tradition.  The focus is on humanity rather than theology.  Some Christian Humanists are theistic, but focus on service to mankind rather than theology.  I think an increasing number of people find themselves captivated by Christianity, but more for its values than for its view of god, and I find myself in that position--in effect, an admirer of Christianity, its values and ethics, and with a commitment to the teachings of Jesus, but not impressed by traditional notions of god.

You might try this Wikipedia article:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_humanism.  That article will point you to the diversity of this approach.  My particular approach is non-theistic, that is to say, I believe that we can be Christians without necessarily having a belief in a god in anything like the traditional way that god is understood.  Best wishes on your exploratory journey.

********

This is a fascinating site. I am a regular church attendee, only not on Sundays or when there are services. My local parish church opens for "Tranquility" on Wednesday mornings for people such as myself to sit in a sacred space and contemplate and reflect. I’ve been doing this for over three years and built up quite a relationship with the vicar, even written a couple of miracle plays that were performed in the church. This, however, does not mean I can subscribe to traditional Christian ideas. Indeed, it seems that much of what is taken as being the life and story of Jesus is actually a recasting of more ancient myths, examples of which are found in Egypt and India. I have come to the conclusion that I am indeed a Christian Humanist which brings me to your site. I have read what you say about God being dead, but I'm not sure it's a phrase or viewpoint I'm comfortable with. I do not subscribe to the white bearded chap on a cloud directing universal operations on his whim. However, as a simple word to indicate what is and may always remain ineffable, a concept common to humanity - in Taoism for instance the Tao is always beyond human description - God remains for me an object of contemplation. It is because God of necessity is beyond human understanding, I hope we never reach the point where we believe we understand everything, that the concept remains forever imprecise and open to interpretation and reinterpretation and yet acts as a signal when human try to communicate with each other on sacred issues. I am quite prepared to accept the universe in all its complexity is divine, which does not mean, of course, it's likely to give me just what I want because I pray. I hope some of this makes sense as I've just written it as I've gone along. Hopefully. this is the beginning of a meaningful dialogue.

********

I just wanted to tell you that finding your website has been a great gift to me and has brought tears to my eyes.  I am a UCC pastor in *** Illinois who has struggled for years with the concept of God.  I simply cannot believe in one even though I tried for a very long time.  It was while at Eden Seminary in my early 40s that I finally had to give in to the reality that I simply am not a theist.  And yet there is something that keeps me in the church.  I'm sure that Jesus is a large part of that, but also tradition, heritage, and a love for the people I work with.  Over the years I have thought of myself as a Christian agnostic or Christian atheist or Christian non-theist, but I prefer your term, "Christian humanist." 

My biggest problem, and my reason for writing (I don't know if you have time to respond or not) is the question of integrity.  I feel a bit false standing in front of my congregation giving the impression, I'm sure, that I believe there is a God "out there" when I really believe that God is something humans have created as a symbol for our deepest passions and loves.

A couple colleagues tell me that I shouldn't worry about it.  No two people think of God in the same way, and if I want to use God talk metaphorically, there is no reason I shouldn't.  But I wonder if I don't at least owe it to my congregation to tell them that that is how I think.  I have given some hints as to where I stand, but I've never been brutally forthcoming.  I have preached that beliefs are not what matters in the Christian life; it is all about how we live our lives.  But I doubt if many inferred from that the thought that belief in God was optional. 

Thanks for listening.  If you have any wisdom for me and the time to respond, I would be grateful.  But if time does not permit, I understand. 

My response: [withheld]

********

I was raised in the Roman Catholic Church and was taught to follow the Bible and do/think what they told me to. I have taken a more humanist view towards religion after minoring in philosophy. I was taught that religion is the truth, but have come to the realization that it is not that but simply a choice. There are so many questions out there and not enough answers. So, is there a God?  Is there a heaven? Well, it is never going to be proven, no one is going to die and come back with conclusive evidence of life ever after. Therefore, the real question is "where does one stand?" Does one want to take a radical stand? A moderate stand? A skeptical stand? What? It is solely up to the individual. I can respect anyone's decision on that and want the same for me.

My response:

Thank you for your comments.  It takes courage to step away from the beliefs and dogma of childhood and youth.  The more we learn the less certain we become that we can know ultimate truth and the more likely we are to respect the beliefs of others.  Best wishes to you on your spiritual journey.

********

I am a 29-year old student/artist/aspiring writer who lives in Indianapolis and enjoys reading the entries on your Christian Humanist web page. I consider your work to be brave, inspiring, thoughtful and well-reasoned. I admire the fact that you boldly tackle controversial topics and make your points in a clear style. Yours is a challenging yet refreshing perspective and I look forward to reading more of your writings. I am also especially appreciative of the detail in which you go into about your own experiences, which parallel my own in many ways …which is why I am writing to you now.

At this point in my life, I consider myself to be a "Jesus-admiring, agnostic humanist " but I haven't always identified myself as such. For the past several years I have been heavily involved as one of the lay leaders in a conservative Christian congregation (mostly Black). But after few years of seminary courses and personal study I have come to find supernatural ideas, literalistic readings of the Bible and basic theological assumptions too hard to believe in anymore. My budding thoughts have begun to put me into tension with the few fellow church members who know some of my views, and I'm not sure what to do with that tension.

But even more pressing than the awkwardness of pretending to be a traditional Christian, I am torn by the thought of revealing my true ideas to my wife (knowing that we share many of the same friends who are traditional Christians). I don’t want my views to jeopardize her friendships but I also don’t want to keep such a deep part of myself hidden away from her and thus jeopardizing our relationship. How did you announce and explain your views to your wife? How did she react/respond and how did you deal with that? Are her views similar? What suggestions or advice would you offer in generating conversations that build understanding between spouses who have different beliefs? What were some of the highs and lows of having such radical beliefs while also being in such a committed marriage relationship?

My response: 

You have raised a significant issue and I wish I had an answer to give.  It is a difficult issue.  My wife and I have been married for 45 years.  She and I discussed your dilemma this evening and she had an interesting perspective.  She said it was not my beliefs that caused her problems initially, it was the implication for her career (she anticipated being a minister's wife, a career that did not last long), for her family (which had a very traditional "Sunday School" religion to which she had not given much thought, but which was important to her family), and the disengagement from regular church activities, particularly the Sunday morning ritual. 
 
She is not intellectually engaged with Christianity.  In that sense, she is probably an agnostic, without traditional views. Her views are compatible with mine, fortunately.  But she is still emotionally interested in being involved in church activities despite her lack of particular belief.  She believes that it is culturally and socially important.
 
My career path involved a transition that made it easier on my wife--from a parish in Western New York, to a prep school in New Hampshire where I chaired the religion department and served as chaplain, to a Unitarian church in Connecticut, to a subsequent career in independent college prep schools and then to business.  So it went slowly.
 
As for a way to "break the news" I suggest giving her short easy reads such as Bishop John Robinson's "Honest to God" - or some of the writings of Bishop John Shelby Spong, a fairly liberal Episcopal Bishop, who takes a tough look at modern Christianity.  Perhaps some discussions with her after you both have read the books might open up some dialogue.  This might be a better approach than simply announcing you are now out of the closet.
 
I have found that my wife's family has learned to accept the fact that I have some non-traditional views.  They are not curious enough to inquire further, but wise enough to decide that it is not a topic of conversation that we engage in when we are together—like politics.

********

[From Hong Kong, China]  I am very impressed with your theological thoughts and cannot agree with them more. Under the influence of Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, etc., I am wondering whether I can still identify myself as a Christian. ….It has been said that "Christian" at least must believe in "Christ," which means Jesus with divinity. If I only believe in the human being Jesus (my theology is very similar, if not identical, to yours), I better call myself a "Jesusian" but not a "Christian."  As you are still calling yourself a "Christian," may I learn your rationale for doing so? And what is your suggestion? Should I call myself a "Jesusian" or a "Christian."  …. May I ask what is your appraisal of Unitarian-Universalism and why you are not a UU or a UU Christian?

My response:

I think you make too much of the distinction between Jesus and Christ.  In a technical sense you are right, Jesus is his name, Christ is his title in Christian theology, so probably Jesusian makes some sense.  However I think it is clumsy.  I prefer Christian because making that distinction detracts from my argument, so I accept your criticism but still prefer Christian.  As to your other question, I have been a minister of several Unitarian Universalist churches, and I am comfortable in most UU churches.

********

I have decided to leave the Southern Baptist church I recently joined to become a Unitarian. It's the only way I can live with religious integrity. Yet, I still am concerned about reactions from the Baptist church members. How should I deal with that?

My response:

I understand your concern.  I grew up in a Southern Baptist church in the Washington DC-Virginia area and after attending theological seminary in Rochester, NY, I decided to become a Unitarian, largely because of UU’s openness and tolerance of a variety of viewpoints.  There have been difficult conversations with relatives and friends, some who wanted to pray for me, but we persisted and discovered that the best approach was to just not talk about religion with them because there was no way we were going to agree and it was just a source of unnecessary friction and unhappiness.  I assume you will join a Unitarian church or fellowship in your area.  Sharing your experiences with others there may be helpful to you.

********

I am an artist and a student at CRCDS. My spiritual/religious journey has brought me here at this time that coincidentally I am coming to believe that I am a Christian Humanist. I have purchased your book in order to read further and to gain a vocabulary in this area. It is still new to me and the idea of no God makes me queasy. I no longer believe in a supernatural theology, but what do I experience in the depth of soul when I am creating art?  Are you aware of Gregory Wolfe and his book The New Religious Humanism? I am not sure how I feel about his writings as they almost seem to be moving towards a god of control... but not quite. I like some of the authors that he has in the book, so I will keep reading it. But if you have read it and have an opinion, I'd like to know it.

My response: 

Our journeys take us down unknown pathways in unanticipated ways, and you are obviously open to receiving insights as you wander down that lonely path through “the dark night of the soul….”  I can see how you may have an empty feeling at the loss of belief(s), at least until you find a way of looking at experience that is grounded in something other than conventional theology.  I found Tillich helpful on this point insofar as he suggests a “ground of being” as fundamental to our experience of reality.  Tillich–and others–discusses an “aesthetic” of experience.  While Tillich is a theologian, it is quite possible to read him as a non-theistic thinker, and in fact he has been called [wrongly, I think] an “atheist” but I think he is seen more accurately as a non-theist.  I have not read anything by Gregory Wolfe, but perhaps I should do so.

********