For the past year, I have been working on a book I call, for now, The Christian Atheist. It explores a spiritual discontent that has grown in me for several years. What I’d like to do here (today and in some subsequent posts) is test some of what I have to say and invite responses.
Despite having been reared as a Christian and ordained late in life as a deacon in the Episcopal Church, I have begun to realize that I can no longer accept the orthodox teachings of the church. I have reached this conclusion in the past six years, since 2002, when I published a book, Night Fishing in Galilee, that takes the resurrection seriously, although the book’s conclusion points away from an exclusive, revealed religion toward spiritual practice in the context of a broader wisdom tradition.
Here’s what I think: the fundamental teachings of the church–orthodoxy–are self-referential, in that the “revealed” scriptures on which they are purportedly based are themselves products of the creation of the church; moreover, much of what the church teaches is not “scriptural” at all. The gospels were written by apologists for a religious community in the process of breaking away from Judaism. They are arguments cast in fictional forms; it is difficult if not impossible to see behind them a person known as Jesus of Nazareth who is not the invention of the texts. And yet the historical basis of Christianity is essential to its being. Without a historical Jesus and his resurrection–without an incarnation of god in flesh–there is no Christian faith. (I understand that the church argues that god is truly revealed in scripture through the workings of the Spirit, but that simply contradicts the equally strong assertion of the religion’s historical truth.)
For there to be an incarnation, a Jesus idea (never mind an actual Jesus), there has to be a god–and a personal god at that. There has to be a scriptural account of this god, as well; otherwise, we do not know him. (We might know something, some sense of presence, some voice—however we define our “encounters” with the “divine”; but we only know the Christian god as the Bible defines him. It is unlikely, I think, that we would otherwise stumble on him, with familiar attributes in place. Alternative god possibilities abound.)
The incarnation depends on the story of the Fall in Genesis–and the dominant theology of the church depends on St. Augustine’s interpretation of that story which leads to the doctrine of Original Sin. “In Adam’s Fall, we sinn-ed all,” goes the old rhyme to help us remember that we are sinful creatures in need of redemption. As the Christian Creeds say, we fell away from god and despite god’s efforts refused to return to him; we were, in effect, bad Jews. God sent Jesus to repair the damage, to redeem us from that original sin. His death and resurrection in some not particularly clear way accomplish the task.
One problem I have with this scenario is that the story in Genesis is clearly a myth; but Christian orthodoxy argues that an actual human is required to repair the damage caused by the myth. (This is one explanation for the fundamentalist’s insistence on the historical truth of Genesis.) One might argue that the Genesis story is a myth that embodies a truth (as good myths do) and that Jesus is a truth that validates the myth. But Augustine is quite literal about his argument for Original Sin: the actual seed of Adam, and subsequently of all men (women having nothing to contribute to new humans, according to ancient science) carries with it the (literal) seed of destruction. Hence the problem with sex. These conclusions are based on a biology we no longer accept: when myth begets biology, lock up your women and children.
The story of the arrival of Jesus is deeply indebted to the Tanakh (what Christians have reorganized and renamed the Old Testament), and one might argue that the whole of the New Testament is little more than a re-reading of the Old to make the argument for the new form of break-away community I mentioned earlier.
In the beginning is not a god but a story (of the Jews) that is literalized in Christian orthodoxy. The problem with our present church structure of belief is that it has descended entirely into literalism. The poetry of the story has been abandoned to pseudo-history. The reason is not hard to find: the church faces extinction in the face of modern skeptical thinking. It now seeks refuge in clinging ever more fiercely to an imagined history to prop up a deflated orthodoxy.
Why does this situation lead me to doubt the existence of god altogether? Why not simply doubt the church and its teachings? Well, for the Christian, all we know of god is what the church tells us, as I’ve said. Since our experience of god is entirely conditioned by church teachings, if we reject them, we reject the whole show, god and all. They are the same. As the church becomes less stable, less sure of itself, less believable, what is at stake is not just an institution: the Christian god is in peril.
Posted by kenarnold
Posted by kenarnold 
Posted by kenarnold