05.19.08
Pluralistic or Totalitarian?
A couple months ago, I wrote about The Clinton School of Public Service (at the University of Arkansas) and its new publication Frank. In the first issue, Joseph Ballard interviewed Richard Dawkins. That interview is now available on the magazine’s website.
Perhaps more interesting is a recent interview with Eboo Patel, founder and executive director of the Interfaith Youth Core. (I spoke at an IFYC event late last year.)
Patel speaks of the two sides of the faith divide.
Not faithless versus faithful, though.
Rather, it’s the totalitarians versus the pluralists:
On one side of the faith line are the religious totalitarians. Their conviction is that only one interpretation of one religion is a legitimate way of being, believing and belonging on Earth. Everyone else needs to be cowed, converted, condemned or killed. Religious totalitarians are not marked by conservative, traditionalist or orthodox religious beliefs. Rather, they are defined by their behavior, driven by the goal of having their group dominate while everyone else suffocates.
On the other side of the faith line are the religious pluralists. Pluralists hold that people believing in different creeds and belonging to different communities need to learn to live together in equal dignity and mutual loyalty. Religious pluralism is neither mere coexistence nor forced consensus. It is a form of proactive cooperation that affirms the identity of the constituent communities, while emphasizing that the well-being of each and all depends on the health of the whole. It is the belief that the common good is best served when each community has a chance to make its own unique contribution.
Obviously, the pluralistic side sounds better.
But where would atheists stand on this issue?
Do we really want the “well-being” of all different faiths? We’d rather people see reason and drop their religious faith altogether. We’re not going to use violence to make that happen, but we don’t really want to see any religion — much less all of them — thriving.
We all know atheists who would fit the totalitarian category a little better. These are the people who are “driven by the goal of having their group dominate while everyone else suffocates.”
But there’s a difference between “militant atheists,” Islamic Jihadists, and Fundamentalist Christians.
A few questions to think about:
Is there an alternative category (or more) that Patel left out?
Where do you fall on the spectrum (if, indeed, we just stick with Patel’s two sides)?
Where should atheists be on the spectrum?
Technorati Tags: atheist, atheism
Popularity: 2% [?]
t3knomanser said,
May 19, 2008 at 8:15 am
“Where is your evidence?” doesn’t fall neatly on that spectrum. You could argue that demanding evidence as a requisite of belief is totalitarian, but it’s also very egalitarian. Anything could be true- so long as there’s enough evidence to support that claim.
Atheism isn’t pluralistic- especially atheism motivated by scientific skepticism. You can’t have the Christians and the Muslims both be right (although they could easily both be wrong). Facts aren’t pluralistic- facts don’t generally contradict each other. If they do, you’re probably putting them together wrong.
So the question is: where does the mandate of evidence fall on the spectrum? I think there needs to be a third leg on the spectrum: egalitarianism. Atheism is egalitarian. Anyone could be all right, partially right, or all wrong- they’ll be judged on the basis of their evidence.
Kate said,
May 19, 2008 at 8:20 am
“We” don’t necessarily want people to drop their faith.
I’m fine if people believe whatever, as long as it does not get pushed on me in any way. Bonus if they think about it.
John said,
May 19, 2008 at 8:25 am
Am I totalitarian if I think everybody should be pluralistic?
Darwin's Dagger said,
May 19, 2008 at 8:34 am
That’s all atheism needs, to get back into bed with Joseph Stalin. All we need to do is reaffirm the words of Jefferson when he wrote “no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.”
Kapture said,
May 19, 2008 at 8:49 am
You are not totalitarian if you think everybody should be pluralistic.
I don’t think pluralism should fall into a trap of cheap moral relativism and continue to allow people to abuse their children in the name of religion. Freedom doesn’t mean you get to make shitty choices for your kids.
writerdd said,
May 19, 2008 at 9:12 am
That was a great article by Patel. Unfortunately, he didn’t seem to mention unbelievers at all. Are we to be excluded?
Aj said,
May 19, 2008 at 9:27 am
Pluralism, multiculturalism, and relativism are a Trojan horse. Look at the different style of language being used to describe it complete with euphemisms of “equal dignity” and “affirms the identity”. What suffers when we adopt such approaches? Our principles, our values, in favour of appeasement of indoctrination, immorality, and nationalisms.
Beware of defence of religion based on anything other than personal freedom and liberty of people. We do not have to accept that religion is a good thing, that cultural identity is a good thing. We should not accept that what one believes is rightfully determined by the family they were born into, determines what is a crime against you, or what level of freedom or prospects you should be happy with.
That we want people to operate on reason not faith is no more totalitarian than wanting people to be educated, healthy, and free.
SpiderBrigade said,
May 19, 2008 at 9:30 am
If all religions were committed to pluralism, I as an atheist wouldn’t care one way or the other whether they thrived or not.
Unfortunately religion generally is incompatible with real pluralism, because every faith is built on the premise that it is universally true. Furthermore, religion makes statements about behavior that are often contradictory (which day is the Sabbath, for instance, or whether you can eat beef). Once you open the door to other sects having equal access to the truth, where do you stop?
So basically, I’d say I’m a pluralist, which works out to “you can believe whatever you want, as long as you don’t expect your faith to be a valid argument on matters of laws/behavior/science. You have to back things up with evidence and so does everyone else.” Which unfortunately pretty much works out to most religions being disqualified =)
cipher said,
May 19, 2008 at 9:54 am
Religious totalitarians are not marked by conservative, traditionalist or orthodox religious beliefs.
I’m really not sure what he means by this. On the face of it, it seems an absurd statement. I would say that orthodox belief is one of the hallmarks of religious totalitarianism. You don’t see Bishop Spong trying to convert people.
Ted Goas said,
May 19, 2008 at 9:56 am
Can atheism be a creed in the pluralistic view? I guess it’s the same as asking “Can non-belief be a stance in the belief system?”
writerdd said,
May 19, 2008 at 9:57 am
Spong is Orthodox? hahhahhaha
What I mean is, he may have belonged to an Orthodox denomination, but his theology is by no means Orthodox. Many would say it is heretical.
mikespeir said,
May 19, 2008 at 9:58 am
I wonder sometimes, they way I hear some atheists talking. I myself often argue that the only reason Christianity is so apparently passive is that it hasn’t the power to impose its will like it once did. Am I really so sure atheists, given that power, wouldn’t also oppress dissenters? No, I’m not.
Brian Larnder said,
May 19, 2008 at 10:13 am
I grew up in a tolitarian-type church so I still tend to see things from that perspective. Yes, the world would be a better place if everyone were pluralistic, but literal belief in a religion is either right or wrong and only one of them can be right. Being pluralistic means that you are admitting that nobody has the literal truth (including you).
So what would be the point of still following if you don’t really believe? I never really got that, which is why I became an atheist once I stopped believing.
D Rho said,
May 19, 2008 at 10:54 am
I don’t think I stand in any camp (they seem so generalized to me). On one hand, as a Jesus Christ follower, I do believe there’s a best way to live - that doesn’t seek political power, condemnation of those who don’t folllow, or cowing or killing those opposed. I do have a heart that seeks to convert, but out of a life of grace and compassion, not rigid imposition.
I guess I’m a sort of pluralist in that sense, though. Where I feel there is truth and value in other religions (even atheism), as well as contradictions with what I believe. Truth is truth whether it’s found in the Scriptures, or in the writings of Confucious, or in Plato’s dictations, or in Oprah’s book of the Month. Jesus highest moral code was LOVE everyone, even our enemies. This means welcoming people just as they are, even if their intent is to exterminate you.
Samizdat said,
May 19, 2008 at 11:18 am
I’ve never met an atheist who would agree with forcing people to abandon religion on pain of death, purely for the sake of atheism. However I’ve met very few who think all ‘faiths’ are equally valid. I’m happy to get on with religious people, but would still consider myself militant… Atheism can’t be totalitarian because we don’t believe atheism is more important than freedom.
Darryl said,
May 19, 2008 at 11:23 am
Like it or not, people of faith separate faith from facts, so requiring an evidentiary spot on the spectrum is a waste of time–it won’t change the dynamic between the totalitarians and the pluralists. I think it’s necessary for atheists to insist upon strict separation of church and state. From what I’ve seen, the pluralists tend to be for that and the totalitarians against it. That puts me with first and opposed to the second.
Right, and our principles and values are fairing well now; we don’t indoctrinate; we’re not immoral or nationalistic. Get real.
It’s not our job to understand how believers can believe and yet be pluralistic–it’s just a fact that some of them do; and it’s a positive thing in my view. If pluralistic believers are more tolerant, if they want to keep church and state separate, if they don’t denigrate me for my unbelief, if they respect science and reason (that is, they recognize an autonomous secular sphere) and do not threaten facts with faith, then the more pluralism the better for all of us. As Patel quoted:
Madison spoke forcefully about the relationship between these two values: “Freedom arises from the multiplicity of sects, which pervades America and which is the best and only security for religious liberty in any society. For where there is such a variety of sects, there cannot be a majority of any one sect to oppress and persecute the rest.”
Aph said,
May 19, 2008 at 11:31 am
@D Rho
You want everyone to be Christian, but to come to that decision based on the compassion of the followers. I dig on that, but your second paragraph I am not digging on. I understand the temptation to tell yourself that you respect the bits of truth in other belief systems. It’s condescending, but it sounds good. How do you justify your belief that there is Truth in other belief systems? Are you saying that there are pieces that are socially useful (i.e. love your neighbor) or that other beliefs are True and will result in the ultimate fulfillment of the believer?
As for my answer to the question, I need to go with the guidelines in the founding documents of the United States on this situation. It’s not unreasonable for someone to expect the freedom to practice their religion.
Roy McKenzie said,
May 19, 2008 at 12:29 pm
I tend to fall into the totalitarian category, which bothers me sometimes. I don’t want to be a “militant atheist” but I really don’t want to tolerate religions for the same reason you said; I don’t want to see the thrive and I’d like people to embrace reason.
Stacy said,
May 19, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Isnt that “Pluralistic outlook” present in the Unitarian Church? I know there is a Unitarian church in Utica, NY that my friend and her family attend, and she claims there are Atheists, Jews, and methodists attending as well. She is herself Pagan. Has anyone ever attended a Unitarian Service? I hear they have great youth groups…..
Jake Meador said,
May 19, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Has anyone read Os Guiness’ new book The Case for Civility? In there he attacks both the religious right and the new atheists because of their totalitarian approach to public discourse. He calls the religious approach the sacred public square and the non-religious approach the naked public square. He says both are flawed because they both are primarily about getting everyone on your team and then ignoring those who aren’t. Instead, he argues for a civil public square, where we embrace a pluralistic public dialogue where we seek to have civil discussion where we learn to live with our deepest differences. Guiness is also one of the authors of An Evangelical Manifesto where he makes a very similar argument.
From my perspective, as a Christian, I think Guiness’ critique is helpful. Is there a part of me that would like everyone to be a Christian? I’d want to attach a few million disclaimers to it because, like Mike Clawson, I’m appalled by much of what passes for Christianity today, but in the end, I would answer the question in the affirmative. However, I know that isn’t going to happen and so I need to learn to dialogue civilly with people who share radically different ideas about the world and humanity - be they Muslim, Atheist, Hindu, or Pagan. I think Brian McLaren’s chapter on other religions in his book A Generous Orthodoxy or the recent Seeds of Compassion event in Seattle are both marvelous examples of the pluralistic civil public square.
I’m sympathetic to the totalitarian approach, but ultimately I think it’s unrealistic, naive, and misguided.
For the totalitarians here - How is the approach you’re suggesting any different from the approach of Christian Fundamentalists? Obviously the endgame is very different for you, but the fundamental ethos seems to be the same.
Viggo the Carpathian said,
May 19, 2008 at 1:58 pm
Any religion that believes in one god to the exclusion of other gods is inherently totalitarian. Any adherent that says otherwise is kinda a shitty adherent.
There shall be no God before me, except maybe Dagon or Odin… I kinda like Krishna too.
Atheists should extend the hope that everyone will recognize the truth and be willing to explain and teach and refute but never force. Do unto others as you would have others do unto you is a good moral law aside from it’s religious connotations.
Maria said,
May 19, 2008 at 2:49 pm
unfortunately I’ve met some people who have made me wonder. anyone who thinks that atheism will automatically will make you reasonable is fooling themselves. it does help in that process for many, but I’ve noticed a surprising amount that seem to retain the whole “our way or the highway” role, or at least more than I would have expected from someone who’s dropped dogma. and yes, I have met some who like the idea of violence. and that is scary. and if you call them on it, they tell you’re just “appeasing religion.” Apparently saying everyone is human is now considered appeasment by some.
I agree with Kate-pluralism is fine with me as long as it’s not forced on people, non-believers have equal rights, and laws aren’t made on it. religion isn’t going to go away anytime soon and it’s time we came to terms with that. But hopefully it can become more progressive and loose it’s destructive edge.
Jake Meador said,
May 19, 2008 at 3:36 pm
Viggo - Your comment made me think about another way of looking at this question - Is totalitarianism characterized by content of belief or the manner in which a belief is held? I suppose you could argue that certain content demands a specific manner of holding it, or at least that seems to be your argument in the above comment. But if that’s the case, who is to determine what specific manner corresponds to the specific content?
For example, yesterday my pastor was talking about the understandable fear many people have that if they become Christian they’ll become a crazy wing-nut religious right Christian who condemns Everyone and Everything They Dislike. But Ben’s response to that was to say that the problem with religious fanatics like Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson is not that they’ve gone too far with Jesus but that they haven’t gone far enough - he argued that if you really take biblical teachings about human brokenness seriously then the natural result should be a tremendous humility in the Christian as a result of understanding their own brokenness.
Obviously many Christians would disagree and argue that the Christian relationship to the non-Christian world ought to be more adversarial in nature. However, I think a biblical case can be made either way, so whose word is final?
One other thought - If one adopts the attitude described by my pastor yesterday, then to return to the question at hand, it’s easy to be a pluralist when it comes to public dialogue and, I would argue, not at all inconsistent with Christianity. First, I don’t want to flippantly or quickly condemn anyone because I know I’m screwed up too and I’m not in any position to act as the moral arbiter. Second, I understand that whatever good things I do have flow exclusively from God’s grace and therefore I have no room for pride whenever I do decide to speak up. Rather, I am to address others with humility and respect because I understand who I am. Third, I understand that the people I’m addressing are made in God’s image and therefore possess tremendous, inherent dignity as human beings. Therefore, the need for humility and respect is reinforced because I understand who the people I’m interacting with are. All that to say, from this lens, one might even argue that Christianity demands pluralism.
Thoughts?
Bad said,
May 19, 2008 at 3:45 pm
I think people, atheist or no, should be basically in the liberal enlightenment realm of pluralism: democracy (no central political authority), capitalism (no central economy authority), and liberal science (no central authority on the truth). These are all systems of competition, which is not the same thing as namby pamby “anything is as good as anything else.” But they are powerful techniques for forging effective and tolerant pluralistic societies that allow various different ideas of the good life to flourish, within reason.
Spacesocks said,
May 19, 2008 at 3:55 pm
I think there’s an important distinction between being a totalitarian and actually thinking you’re right.
As long as you recognize that other people have a right to hold their beliefs and not be intimidated and harassed for holding them, you can live with them even if you think they’re wrong. And as long as you realize that you’re fallible too, you can prevent yourself from getting too self-involved, and you can learn from the people you fundamentally disagree with on a lot of things.
You can change people’s minds, if that’s what you want to do, by showing how your ideas work, by being a good person and by publicly articulating your beliefs (or lack thereof), and criticizing other beliefs respectfully (hard to do when you’re dealing with religion, but it’s all we can do). Even a lot of evangelicals are realizing this.
Like someone said earlier in the thread, freedom is more important than atheism (and even if atheism is “freedom” in a sense, it’s not freedom if it isn’t freely adopted).
All forms of totalitarianism suck. Pluralism means recognizing that other people have a right to their own opinion and a right to their own way of doing things as long as that doesn’t involve harming others. It doesn’t mean we have to be “tolerant” when people do harm others.
Beth said,
May 19, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Totally not about the topic, but I went to summer camp with Eboo Patel. I can’t believe that kid is this guy! Amazing.
cipher said,
May 19, 2008 at 4:13 pm
But we reject the idea that there is a God, or that we are made in his image. When we die - will we go to hell?
Spurs Fan said,
May 19, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Cipher,
This was my exact thought when I read this, but I think we had that debate before with Mike Clawson and others on a previous post (I think the one about Matt Taibbi), so it may be exhausted. Still, I have trouble coming up with satisfying answers as the script usually goes somethin like:
A: Am I going to hell?
E: I don’t believe in the traditional version of hell…what if hell is just what heaven feels like to those who don’t know the way of Christ?
A: It sounds pretty bad when Jesus talks about it.
E: Well, the Greek translation really means “place of the dead” (or something) and even Christians can fall into that trap. Truth of Jesus’ way is everywhere.
A: So if I’m an atheist am I actually closer to “heaven” than some Christians?
E: Maybe. It’s all about a conversation of real truth and love.
A: So, why do you insist that truth must be found within a Christ-context? Why is Jesus not just one of many inspiring people in your life? Why elevate him?
E: Oh, well I still believe in God and Jesus and the resurrection and all.
A: A methaphorical resurrection?
E: No, a real physical one.
A: ?????????????
I guess this post proves that even if I think I’m a pluralist, I have some totalitarian in me. But I still favor the pluralist viewpoint overall (I am you doubters,…if you don’t believe me, I’ll have you burned at the stake!
Spurs Fan said,
May 19, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Cipher,
This was my exact thought when I read this, but I think we had that debate before with Mike Clawson and others on a previous post (I think the one about Matt Taibbi), so it may be exhausted. Still, I have trouble coming up with satisfying answers as the script usually goes somethin like:
A: Am I going to hell?
E: I don’t believe in the traditional version of hell…what if hell is just what heaven feels like to those who don’t know the way of Christ?
A: It sounds pretty bad when Jesus talks about it.
E: Well, the Greek translation really means “place of the dead” (or something) and even Christians can fall into that trap. Truth of Jesus’ way is everywhere.
A: So if I’m an atheist am I actually closer to “heaven” than some Christians?
E: Maybe. It’s all about a conversation of real truth and love.
A: So, why do you insist that truth must be found within a Christ-context? Why is Jesus not just one of many inspiring people in your life? Why elevate him?
E: Oh, well I still believe in God and Jesus and the resurrection and all.
A: A methaphorical resurrection?
E: No, a real physical one.
A: ?????????????
I guess this post proves that even if I think I’m a pluralist, I have some totalitarian in me. But I still favor the pluralist viewpoint overall (I do you doubters,…if you don’t believe me, I’ll have you burned at the stake!
cipher said,
May 19, 2008 at 4:52 pm
I know. I wasn’t going to go very far with it. I just wanted to hear what the new guy has to say.
Mike passed the test, anyway. He told me that he doesn’t believe I’m going to hell for being a secular Jew. He is the FIRST evangelical who has ever said that to me. (Of course, he probably thinks I’m going to hell for being an asshole, but that wasn’t on the exam!)
Spurs Fan said,
May 19, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Heh, heh. How full would that hell be? Quite full my friend, quite full.
miller said,
May 19, 2008 at 6:45 pm
I think the totalitarian vs pluralistic or tolerant vs intolerant models are only good as first-order approximations. If that were the only way to divide people, imagine the mess we’d have.
Jake said,
May 19, 2008 at 10:46 pm
Cipher / Spurs fan - That’s a good question, I think a lot of the discussion that you already had with Clawson is very helpful. I guess the only thing I would add is that I think the notion of Hell as a specific place you go to is perhaps more grounded in a gnostic understanding of Christianity than a biblical one. I think it reflects the false idea that if you believe the right thing you escape this bad place and go to a good one after you die and if you believe the wrong thing God happily sends you to the bad place. I don’t think that’s biblical. I think the biblical storyline is that God is bringing healing and restoration to a broken world and he invites us to participate in that restoration. And I think that’s as far as I feel comfortable going. I don’t really feel that it’s my place to say who will go where in the eternal state. (On a side note, if you want to read more, I’m really indebted to N.T. Wright in a lot of my thinking on this issue.)
I don’t know if that’s helpful or not, but I can assure you that this is an issue I’ve thought about a lot and honestly it nearly drove me away from Christianity. The thing that got to me though was a book by Brian McLaren (Mike knows him, I think) discussing the doctrine of hell. I grew up in a fundamentalist church that seemed to take a perverse delight in the idea of hell and I’d never seen a Christian who seemed to grasp the horror of what was being discussed. McLaren did. And it really moved me. So when I talk about this issue I’m not thinking as a detached person pondering abstractions; this is an issue I’ve literally lost sleep over.
As far as my own understanding of the doctrine of hell is concerned, this is how I’d try to articulate it, but I’m a 20-year-old university student, so where Clawson and I disagree, although I don’t think we will, go with Clawson: If you’re willing to assume the eternal nature of human beings, I don’t think it takes too much imagination to get a sense of what Hell might be like - it’s simply the eternal trajectory of the self-absorbed being. C.S. Lewis captures this marvelously in his book The Great Divorce. He said that the gates of hell are locked from the inside. In other words, it’s not that God forces anyone there, as if he delights in the suffering of others. The Bible is clear that God does not delight in pain or suffering.
Rather, individual human beings become so captive to their own self-centeredness, arrogance, pride, and vanity that they are incapable of experiencing genuine pleasure. And they go on existing in that state for all eternity. Look at a literary figure like Dorian Gray, observe his downward spiral as his life falls apart as he becomes more and more consumed by his own selfishness. Now imagine if he continues moving in that direction forever. That’s Hell.
Thanks for asking good questions, I don’t think there are any perfect answers, but perhaps this is helpful?
cipher said,
May 20, 2008 at 5:54 am
Jake,
Thanks for your response. As you’re twenty years old, I don’t want to give you a hard time; I’m old enough to be your father. I’ll just make a few points:
I appreciate the effort on the part of people like McLaren (and the Emergent and Sojourners crowds in general) to be progressive and inclusive, but I find their waffling on the issue of salvific exclusivism - “Maybe yes, maybe no, we can’t know, we can only hope…” unacceptable. As I said, Mike is the ONLY evangelical who has ever had the courage to tell me, “No, I don’t believe you’re going to hell” (for being a Jewish atheist, at any rate, which was the question I posed to him).
After years of being browbeaten by Christians, I am not a great believer in the merits of interfaith dialogue. This is the litmus test I have now - “Am I going to hell?” - and I don’t allow ambivalence. If the answer is “no”, we can talk. If the answer is “yes”, we have nothing further to say to one another.
C. S. Lewis - I’ve never had any use for the man. He was an obscure English Lit professor who gave simplistic, mediocre lectures on theology to working class Brits, and, for some reason, the entire evangelical subculture, across the spectrum, has embraced him, and has convinced itself that he provided the answers to any objection a skeptic might ever pose (that “trilemma” business alone demonstrates a great deal of what is wrong with Christian apologetics). The notion that a human being would “choose” to resist God for all of eternity is merely an attempt to rationalize an obscene, insupportable doctrine.
I disagree, also, on the characterization of God in the Bible. I think the overall picture given is of a being who does take pleasure in the pain of human beings, both here and in the hereafter. The Calvinists didn’t get this out of nowhere.
I do appreciate your telling us that the fundamentalist church in which you grew up took “a perverse delight in the idea of hell”. Last week, I made the assertion here that this is a common sentiment in the evangelical/fundamentalist world, and a couple of people took me to task over it, claiming that it’s a rare phenomenon. I hope they’re reading this.
Spurs Fan said,
May 20, 2008 at 7:24 am
Jake,
Thanks for the response. In the previously-mentioned post, Cipher, myself, and Mike (as well as a few others) had this very conversation and the ideas you put forth here were well-represented. I appreciate the time you took to lay them out.
Still, I have to “side” with Cipher here. On one hand, the emergent (progressive thinking, whatever) Church folk scare me a lot less than the fundamentalists. I can find much agreement on things, especially in the political sphere. On the other hand, the “fundies” seem to be more consistent, while the McClarens of the world seem (to me at least) to tiptoe around the issue and “nice” it up for us. In that respect, I have greater respect for the Fundamentalist who tells me point blank that he/she believes I’m going to hell because I have rejected the incarnate son of the Lord our God (or whatever). Because if you’re right, I’m still confused by this:
Can God do this without Christ? Can we “participate” withouth having to belive that Christ rose from the dead? I seem to know many atheists (on this blog in fact) who have not become captive to these things and are doing a great job to fix the “broken” world. I also seem to know many Christians who don’t seem to have ever gotten past these traits. So, to use this example, in my mind, there are atheists and christians who have achieved a higher standard of service to others (and true “genuine pleasure”) and there are atheists and christians who have not, who continue to live in the “hell” of self-centeredness. If you are in agreement on this, the big question why do you need Jesus at all? Or at least why do you need him exclusively? Why call yourself a Christian? Why elevate Christ as the only example of someone who has conquered these things? Could you not put Gandhi or even your parents (assuming that they had a true desire to serve you and others) in that same category? Why not just call yourself a humanist who wants to improve the condition of humanity using examples from thousands of people who strive to do it every day?
If you’re answer to these questions is that you believe in the actual, physical, resurrection of Christ, then we’re back at square one my friend. Jesus, in my opinion, has some noble teachings. However, he seemed to draw a clear line in the sand on this one. You’re either with him or against him, eh? (said long before George Bush) And if you accept some of the doctrine, but deny (or refuse to answer), then all you’re telling me is that, yes, I’m probably going to hell, but you’d like to not have to tell me that, so therefore, “only god knows” is, well, quite the cop-out.
cipher said,
May 20, 2008 at 7:36 am
Yeah. This is something that bothers me about them; they seem to want to keep a foot on both sides of the fence.
Hear, hear.
Bekka said,
May 20, 2008 at 8:22 am
Long time lurker, first time poster.
It is not true pluralism that allows freedom to leaders who in turn restrict freedom of their followers. It is simply imposing oppression from a distance. In the sphere of religion, this is an incredibly difficult litmus test to apply, along two lines.
1) The indoctrination of children by their parents and
2) the direct restriction of freedom of the individuals by the religion, either through presumed natural and God-imposed hierarchy (men > women, believers > nonbelievers) or through threat of damnation.
In my (admittedly and obviously limited) experience, the two tentative suggestions I’d have for religions that at least have the strong potential for fulfilling those pluralistic guidelines would be Unitarianism, and Reform Judaism. Both have a loose set of beliefs, but emphasize choice through knowledge, especially with children, and don’t actually mandate holding any set ideas about God as a prerequisite for belonging to the religion. That’s not to say that they hold the monopoly on these ideas by any stretch of the imagination, and I’d like to think it is possible for every religion to reach a similar point in their own dogma, these are just the two examples I’m familiar with.
Perhaps this definition fits better under the heading of egalitarianism, as another poster suggested, or egalitarian pluralism? It also addresses the issue of moral relativism - any creed not dependent on faith-based, inherent hierarchies of worth, not requiring professions of pure faith as a precursor to salvation, and encouraging questioning and pushing the boundaries of knowledge, can then be seen as morally neutral and equally legitimate choices in a pluralistic world.
Jake Meador said,
May 20, 2008 at 10:54 am
More good questions… First, a quick word of defense for Lewis - Christians grossly misappropriate him and I do agree that the trilemma is generally a useless argument.
Anyway, as I read your comments there was one thought that came to mind that I want to get to before answering the question more directly: I think by framing the discussion in this way, you’re asking a question that is in many ways unhelpful because the entire issue is really tangential to the Christian faith. Christianity - despite what many of our fundamentalist friends might say - is not primarily concerned with the eternal residence of human beings. Rather, it is concerned with the restoration of all things to the way they were originally intended to be by God. For that reason, I feel like these questions are attempting to put words in the mouth of Christians when really the best answer is, as theologian John Stott calls it, “humble agnosticism.”
However, you did ask for my personal belief about the issue so I’ll try to be as direct as I can, though I would ask that you keep what I said above in mind when you respond.
First off, I would say that the pattern for restoration is set by the resurrection of Jesus. Jesus’ resurrection body gives us a preview of what recreation is all about. And in denying that, one is cut off from the possibility of personal recreation. Forgive me for referencing Lewis again, but in The Last Battle after Aslan’s rule is perfectly realized we meet a few dwarves who refuse to acknowledge Aslan or his rule. There is great celebration all around them, but they refuse to participate in it. It’s also like the older son in the biblical story of the prodigal son. The prodigal son returns, the father has a great party and the older son refuses to participate in it. Or you could imagine someone who is very thirsty but refuses to take a drink from the only available drinking fountain, insisting that there must be another source. So the way I would phrase it - rather than saying “God sends someone to hell” - is to say that those who refuse to acknowledge the resurrection, are subject to hell. I realize that may sound like trying to “nice it up,” but I’m phrasing it that way for a reason, it’s not that I really think God is going to send you to hell - I don’t. I do think that the refusal to acknowledge the reality of resurrection subjects you to hell. And I do think there’s a difference. (I’m guessing you’ll probably disagree?) Hopefully you’ll still talk to me after this response, because I want to have my ideas challenged and stretched, so I enjoy the discussion. Plus, being able to have these discussions civilly is, I think, pluralism of the best sort.
Last thing - I completely agree with you on the point about there being many wonderful atheists and many awful Christians. I think this is especially problematic in the west today where Christians have often adopted a very defensive attitude and adversarial relationship with non-Christians. In fact, I can think of a number of friends I grew up with at the church I mentioned previously who have completely abandoned religious faith and this is one of their primary reasons for doing so. Far too often Christians are blind to the beauty of non-Christians and the sin of Christians. And there’s really no excuse for it.
Jake said,
May 20, 2008 at 10:56 am
This is a different Jake, just to be a little more confusing.
I agree with the other Jake, spacesocks, and Guiness in Case for Civility. There should be plenty of room for tolerance and discussion without anyone having to give up their views. And you have to know there’s a difference between radical Muslims who will behead you for insulting their religion and conservative Christians who think you’re wrong and will tell you they think you’re wrong. A big difference.
Cipher, would you say your litmus test for interfaith dialogue (where you won’t talk to someone who believes in the traditional Christian view of hell) is intolerant? Or are you just saying, “I’ll tolerate you but not be willing to talk about religion”? Honest question.
Spurs Fan said,
May 20, 2008 at 11:07 am
But, Jake, why? How do you know this? From the Bible? The same Bible, most Christians seem to think has a more literal meaning? And is the atheist who fits the characteristic you see as good and in touch with the “restoration” still, by denying Christ resurrection, “cut off” from that same “personal recreation”?
Spurs Fan said,
May 20, 2008 at 11:12 am
What? I’m interested to hear this further explained. I don’t need to hear how you would PHRASE it. Tell how it’s going to be!Is this not the same gymnastics we’ve been discussing? At least Pat Robertson would tell me that I’m straight up going to hell, and man, it ain’t nice!
Agreed!
Karen said,
May 20, 2008 at 12:11 pm
The problem is that Gray is a fictional character.
I can’t imagine any real person, given clear evidence that both heaven and hell exist (assuming they do), who would choose to spend eternity in hell. Selfish and self-absorbed people would be more likely to choose heaven because of the rewards there!
C.S. Lewis and his literary fiction aside, it just wouldn’t happen in reality, outside of mental illness. And I don’t see how a good god would allow a mentally ill person to choose suffering over paradise.
Karen said,
May 20, 2008 at 12:12 pm
My mother used to call this “having your cake and eating it, too.”
Darryl said,
May 20, 2008 at 12:43 pm
It is not a rare phenomenon. This perverse delight is, in many cases, a sublimated class hatred, inferiority complex, or plain ol’ misoxeny on the part of low-brow, underclass types toward other subcultures who seem to be living well and getting off too easy. It’s envy and jealousy masquerading as righteous zealotry.
I have more than once perturbed Mike C. on this very point. I think he and his ilk pick and choose from the Bible what they need to support what they already believe; he calls that proper interpretation, and is prepared to buttress his readings from other authorities. This is a problem, isn’t it: I like where Mike comes out, but I disapprove of his methodology, of intellectual dishonesty, or to give him the benefit of the doubt, self-deception. This is why I can say that the fundies have it right on this or that position, but they are nuts.
Jake said,
May 20, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Question for the atheists: Could a Christian believe in the classical Christian view of hell (i.e. place of eternal punishment for all who don’t trust in Christ) without you thinking he took “perverse delight” in it?
I ask because many of you (in other posts) have talked about how it’s bad for Christians to try to persuade people to convert to Christianity. But the reason we do this is because we think they’re going to hell if they don’t, and we don’t want them to go to hell.
Spurs Fan said,
May 20, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Sure. As an atheist, I obviously think it’s a ridiculous idea, but I was once a Christian who believed in hell and I definitely did not take “perverse delight” in it. It did however, make me selfishly feel good, that no matter how many people converted, I would be okay in heaven. I think that’s understandably comforting, but still, it doesn’t make it true.
My point is that the Christians who believe in hell as a bad destination (or journey) for non-believers are at least being honest and then perhaps, being very genuine in their attempts to “save” me. That can be more annoying, but it’s honest. In my humble opinion, those of the emergent church crowd side-step the issue with all sorts of gymnastics. I used to do that too, until I realized why: I felt guilty about hell, because it didn’t make sense for my god to have a hell…my belief system began to fall apart because of many things, but this was a major one.
Let me be clear…I salute the Mike Clawsons of the world for thinking about things. I’m not anti-intellectualism. I just feel that they want to enjoy the benefits of their faith without acknowledging the difficult parts, the parts, that were they to look at too closely, might really challenge their entire belief system. Instead, their intepretations are so far away from the norm (the defendable? is that a word?), that what they believe seems to be a different religion entirely, almost a Buddhist view of Christianity.
Perhaps I’ve oversimplified, but it still comes down to this: On the issue of hell and separation from god, Fundamentalist are more honest, but as far as who I can coexist with more easily, the Emergent crowd is the easy winner.
Polly said,
May 20, 2008 at 1:52 pm
If you think someone is on the HWY to Hell and you can impart information to prevent it, then it is (sorry to say) your moral obligation to help that person. After offering, if you are rebuffed, back away and pray that (s)he will see the light on his/her own.
You cannot believe that unbelievers will go to Hell and then be “OK” with other faiths or no faith. Anything that gets people thrown into Hell, must be fought against tooth and nail.
That’s why I think atheists should actively educate (I know that sounds condescending, but I don’t know any other way to say it) the population through open forums as much as possible about the paucity of evidence for the existence of any god. Killing this horrific and irrational belief is the only thing that will set xians and their would-be converts free.
Out of the many, many wonderful things about no longer being a xian two are:
1)I don’t have to fear that the BILLIONS and BILLIONS of people out there who don’t know Christ are going to Hell.
2) I no longer feel the pressure to be a salesman for Christ.
thank god i’m an atheist.
Jake said,
May 20, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Thanks Spurs Fan. I agree.
D Rho said,
May 20, 2008 at 1:57 pm
@Aph
I admit it does sound condescending. I apologize.
What I mean to say is that I think Truth belongs something bigger than us (who I call God), and each of us has some grasp on what that Truth is (by God’s design).
There are things that are True irrefutiably: like people die, space is huge, common moral concerns, desires…
Then there’s perceived truth: like Jesus is the Son of God, the plethera of Hindu gods, the belief there is no God… Sometimes perceived truth aligns and often it contradicts. And yet, we all hold some grasp of Truth and a greater portion of perceived truth. I guess I suppose I have more of a portion of the Truth based on my perceived truth. Which I’m sure you do as well. And so would a Buddhist monk.
D Rho said,
May 20, 2008 at 2:14 pm
About whether atheists or people in other religions are going to hell:
I don’t know.
Yet, I do believe that Jesus Christ claimed to be the way the truth and the life, and that no one comes to God but through him.
This simply means that if people desire to come to God they must follow the ways and teachings of Jesus Christ. It doesn’t mean that everyone else goes to Hell who doesn’t believe in Jesus Christ. It’s not some marker for who goes to Heaven or Hell.
For example: Jesus forgave those around the cross (could’ve been the Romans who executed him, the Jews who accused him and betrayed him, the Samaritans who just came to see some blood, the Greeks who didn’t believe in this stuff…) for no good reason. They didn’t believe in Him, say a prayer of confession, convert to a new moral code, or devote their lives to the church. And yet they were forgiven by Jesus Christ. God is omnipotent and not confined to our traditions and suppositions.
So, I don’t know. No one knows. The Bible does not tell us either.
Darryl said,
May 20, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Having said that the Emergent church is not orthodox in its doctrines (at least as I have heard them represented by Mike C.) is not to say that it isn’t Christian, or doesn’t have the right to represent itself as such. I may think I know what orthodox Christian doctrine is, but I also know that whoever or whatever church calls itself Christian is by virtue of that Christian. It may be unrelated to previous versions of the faith, it may be nothing but some novel invention that takes the name of Christ, but it is nonetheless Christian. I have no desire to test who is or is not Christian. My only interest here is to make proper distinctions, and keep folks honest: if you claim to be orthodox, or historic, or true Christianity, you’re going to be put to the test, not because I have a stake in it, but because I care about honesty and accuracy, and bristle at those who would “. . . enjoy the benefits of their faith without acknowledging the difficult parts . . . ” I suppose I do so out of some hope, however unfounded, that they might inspect their faith a bit more objectively, and perhaps begin to see the folly of their way.
Jake Meador said,
May 20, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Spurs fan - I was walking in Rochester, Minnesota once and met a homeless guy in a park. We talked for about an hour; he was in debt several hundred thousand dollars due to checking into various rehab clinics that were unsuccessful (sadly, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if many of them were run by well-intentioned Christians who attempted to meet some sort of “spiritual” need - I don’t even know that that means, but Christians talk about it all the time - and failed to give sufficient help with his alcoholism). In any event, he was now divorced, homeless, an alcoholic, and had no real outs anymore because he was so far in debt. Then he said, “I really need to get sober.” We then talked about life in general for an hour (no, I didn’t try to convert him
) and then he decided he had to leave and before he left he asked me for some money. I didn’t want to say yes - in case he was buying more alcohol - or no - because I didn’t want to be presumptuous and assume the worst - so I just told him I’d walk with him for awhile wherever he needed to go. He told me, “well, I’m going to the liquor store and you’re too young to get in… can I just have some money? I want a beer.” I offered to buy him dinner, but he didn’t want to bum a meal off anyone. So, I didn’t give him the money, but he then walked away and went to the liquor store anyway. That’s hell. You know what you need to do but are so trapped in your destructive way of living that you refuse to do it.
I’m sorry I keep offering such long answers, but I hate short answers because they’re never adequate in any context, and in this case they’re especially inadequate because we’ve had the Pat Robertsons and Fred Phelps’ of the world spreading wrong ideas about it for so many years. In response to the question you asked about whether an atheist is cut off from restoration because they reject the resurrection, I would say yes.
(Again, I hope this doesn’t cause you to disregard me in future conversations… From my perspective what we’re saying is not that different - We both think the other is wrong, the only difference is that if you’re right, then I stop being wrong when I die because I cease to exist. But if my assertion that humans never stop existing is correct, then you’ll continue to be wrong, even after your physical body is dead. In both cases, being wrong results in certain outcomes. I’m not trying to revive Pascal’s Wager here because I think as an argument for Christianity it’s bs, but I am trying to make the point that we both think the other is wrong, and within our belief systems, being wrong carries with it certain consequences. Perhaps the consequence in the Christian system is more severe, but that only makes sense because being wrong over a period of a million years is more destructive than being wrong over a period of 70.)
Jake Meador said,
May 20, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Spurs fan - One other question - How would you define orthodox Christian theology? You’re not the first to accuse the emerging crowd of being outside the realm of orthodoxy, but I’m just curious at how you’d define it.
Spurs Fan said,
May 20, 2008 at 2:54 pm
This is exactly what I’m talking about. If you believe that my rejecting Christ allows me not to “come to God”, then your belief does in fact tell you that atheists, agnostics, and those in other religions ARE going to be separated from god. In fact, it’s obvious that the Bible is a saced text for you as that quote comes directly from the Gospel of John (if he wrote it). So, you do know! If you tell me what the standard is and I clearly don’t meet it, then it is obvious that I am in fact going to hell, eh? Why sidestep it? Are you ashamed that your god would leave so many out? Does something bother you about a so-called loving god who would separate himself (I assume “him”) from individuals for refusing to believe something?
First, this is your intepretation and trust me, it’s in a strong minority in the Christian community (both in the U.S. and abroad). Second, many atheists (including myself) really like some of the “ways and teachings” of Jesus. After all, how could this world not be better off if we loved our enemies? Yet, I do not believe that Jesus performed miracles nor rose from the dead. So, by your definition, am I destined for hell? Am I truly following in the ways of the god I don’t believe in, even though I find Jesus to be admirable in some instances and a lunatic in others? Is Mohandas Gandhi or my own dad, two people who arguably folowed the “ways of Christ” truly in heaven?
By Jesus’ own words I’m pretty damn sure that a person who would deny the existence of God would be bound for the “fires of hell”. Again, not that being in a majority makes someone right, but if your theology is in such a minority, then doesn’t it cease to be of that same faith? Is this a new religion?
I guess I’m rambling here, but again, why dance around it? If I’m going to hell have the courage to tell me! However, if the “ways and teachings of Christ” are more important than the resurrection then preach the teachings, as well as others who taught similar or better things, then stop promoting some human being who supposedly came back to life and focus on the ideas alone.
cipher said,
May 20, 2008 at 3:13 pm
But, Jake, why? How do you know this? From the Bible? The same Bible, most Christians seem to think has a more literal meaning? And is the atheist who fits the characteristic you see as good and in touch with the “restoration” still, by denying Christ resurrection, “cut off” from that same “personal recreation”?
To which I would add - why does it have to be eternal? Becasue Lewis says so? Because the Bible says so? But we’re interpreting away the “hard” passages about hell! The prodigal son’s elder brother, presumably, comes in when the old man (who goes out after him, I might add) asks him to.
Tom Talbott and his colleagues among the universalists believe that, eventually, everyone will come around.
cipher said,
May 20, 2008 at 3:16 pm
I agree wholeheartedly. Also -
Karen, are you paying attention to this?
cipher said,
May 20, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Jake, I don’t have time to go into this now - I’m on my way out the door - and we really shouldn’t get into it anyway, because I’ll just get angry and people here have seen how nasty I can become when that happens, however …
The short answer is - you shouldn’t believe it in the first place. You can spout apologetics until you’re blue in the face; there’s no justification for it, other than, “The Bible says so”. It’s a matter of interpretation, and, even if you don’t believe that, you (collectively) should have the balls (or ovaries) to stand up and say, “No. This cannot be. It’s simply out of the realm of consideration.” In other words, you should have the courage to stand with us - the rest of poor, suffering humanity - rather than apart from us, and not just hide behind the excuse of “Well, God knows best, and when we get to heaven, we’ll see as he does and we’ll understand why it was all necessary.” It’s the ultimate cop out.
Look, here it is from my point of view - you’ve adopted a belief system that gives you comfort at the expense of my eternal soul. Free will, God’s will - it doesn’t matter; it’s all irrelevant. In the end, although it may not be your first choice, you’ll acquiesce to my spending eternity in a state of unimaginable torment. And why? So you can have the ontological security blanket for a few brief decades while alive. I see it as a form of addiction, and I have no use for it. So, the truth is - I really don’t give a crap if it’s intolerant. You people have been terrorizing me for over half a century. I’m middle aged, I’m irascible, and I simply won’t put up with it any longer.
(Also, I’m an old fashioned liberal. I’m only tolerant when it’s for the Left!)
One more thing - in Buddhism, the ideal is to become a Bodhisattva, a being who could enter into Nirvana, a rarefied state beyond birth and death, but chooses to remain in this suffering universe, postponing his/her own liberation indefinitely to work for the liberation of all other sentient beings. There is a prayer or vow that the Dalai Lama repeats every day,
For as long as space endures
and sentient beings remain
May I too remain
to dispel the misery of the world.
In Buddhism, liberation (”salvation”, if you will) is a collective deal. In Christianity, it’s “I’ve got mine; you get yours”. See the difference?
And now I really have to go.
Spurs Fan said,
May 20, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Jake,
Definitely don’t mind the long answers. Looking at mine, I would be quite the hypocrite if I did.
By this definition, we are all in a variety of different hells. I could stand to drop 15 pounds or so, but I like food and keep eating a tad bit too much of it. Overall, however, I suffer from no such “destructive” addictions. This seems to your own inner-definition. That’s fine, unles you’re claiming Jesus or the Bible as a source. Both of those, at least the way I have read them, have very diferent versions of hell (in fact, if this guy enjoyed his alcohol during the brief moment he consumed it, he got temporary relief from hell, “quenched” if you will, something Jesus mentions will not happen.)
I respect this honesty, thought by your loose definition earlier, it seems arbitrary. I feel like I truly love and care for people and spend a lot of time in trying to help them. Overall, I’m happy with my life and I can see the value in truly serving humanity. So, by your own view of hell, why would I be in danger of it by simply not believing that some guy 2,000 years came back to life?
Paschal’s wager indeed. Pretty gutless, don’t you think? (well, because my consequences could be greater, I’ll go with the safe pick).
You also forgot to include the fact that if you’re wrong, you spend 70 some odd years following what could be a superstition. Not as bad as eternal torment, but still a possible consequence. I went through a period when I deconverted from Christianity when I had a tough time grasping what the world meant…it was so depressing, but that didn’t make it not true. I kept thinking, “oh crap, this is all there is…this can’t be”. It was difficult, but eventually I worked it out and was able to “cope”.
Now, I try to make every day count and not because some invisible diety is looking over my shoulder, but because I truly care about my people (humans) and not just for infinite reward or a path that will make me feel all good inside.
I’m guessing that most self-labeled Christians would have some variation of this:
God is perfect and omni-everything and created us in his image (along with the dinosaurs). But then his first man and woman sinned by eating an apple (she ate it and the man LET her do it) and thus we’re doomed to a life of pain and suffering. Then, God picked the Jewish people as his favorite. Despite the fact they were his chosen people he made a bunch of arbitrary rules for them to follow and when they didn’t he created severe punishments for them (except for his REAL favorites like Noah, David, and Solomon). Still, he smited their enemies quite handily (sometimes killing the wome and children) and gave his homeboys (who owned some homegirls) good land. After a while though, they became quite disobedient so he let others come in and kill and conquer them. Then, God came up with a new plan (or was it?). He would come down to earth in human form, but somehow still be his own son. His name would be Jesus (he would happen to live in the same area and get this, be Jewish as well!). Jesus would spend the majority of his 33 years doing basic carpentry (or so we assume), but the last three he would travel around Palestine giving long speeches (some sounded crazy and some had some pretty novel ideas), healing people, and tearing up synagogues. Eventually, the Romans and Jewish leaders had him executed. But, he came back to life. This was God’s way of showing how much he loved us (you know, by saying “I’ll go through what many of you have gone through!”). But, if you didn’t adore this act of love by embracing it and following the seemingly new teachings of this Jesus guy, you are bound to be separated from God forever. (Oh and if you don’t agree with the writings of these other folks named Peter and Paul, then you probably don’t really contain the “Holy Spirit” which is God, er, Jesus, er, both inside of you, telling you how to think and making you do all of the right stuff).
How’s that? Satire aside (and probably offense aside as well), I would think that most Christians on the planet have some sort of view of this type of theology, not to mention the “hell” part of it. If they didn’t believe in hell, why would they have the need to claim the exclusivity of Christ? And if they are endowed with the same holy spirit as you are, Jake, then why is their version of the gospel so different from yours? I’m sure diversity is appreciated, but there must be a common theme for us to indentify people of the same religious faith. Right?
Spurs Fan said,
May 20, 2008 at 3:59 pm
I’m not as much, but I still agree with you Cipher. I think you and I have the same idea here: We disagree (and sometimes get offended) at the Fundamentalist notion that they have the only truth and that we are going to hell. Yet, we know where we stand with them, and only have to fight political battleso ver separation of church and state (important ones no doubt). With the progressives/Emergent folk, we get the sense that they are holding on to the pleasant aspects of their beliefs (based on the same source as the fundamentalists) like love and eternal security, while failing to really take on the ugly (others not having the same access to their truth). Yet, we can work alongside of them easier because we may be actually closer in worldview to them then the fundies.
I guess it could seem like if you’re a Christian you’re damned if you do or damned if you don’t, but if the idea is to truly see what the most likely case scenario of the world is, then the arguments have to be made.
Karen said,
May 20, 2008 at 4:10 pm
Yes, I am cipher, but thank you for pointing it out anyway.
Yes, I can see this primarily being a class phenomenon among religious people (certainly not just Christians) who cannot stand to see “sinners prosper” while they struggle even while they are supposed to be the enlightened and righteous ones favored by god. “They’ll get their comeuppance in the end!” is not a hard reaction to fathom, and in fact it is often cited to explain the virulent hatred of secular society we see in fundamentalist Islam.
My point (and a few others who were formerly Christians agreed) in the evangelism thread where this discussion came up is that the perverse delight is a minority phenomenon, not a mainstream holding of all/most religious people. In 30 years of Christianity, the majority of people I met were either indifferent (”it’s god’s problem, not mine”) about hell or distressed enough about it to make themselves obnoxious trying to convert people. Now admittedly, I didn’t attend churches in poor areas where believers tended to be bitter and undereducated - quite the opposite, probably - so the people I knew could “afford” to feel sorry for sinners, rather than cackle gleefully over their ultimate roasting.
Jake Meador said,
May 20, 2008 at 4:16 pm
Point by point:
1) On the issue of a variety of hells and being in hell now: Amongst some Christian traditions there’s an idea that the Kingdom of God is both already present and not yet. Basically, it means there are certain ways in which God’s kingdom is already realized and other ways that it is not. Basically, it’s the idea that the kingdom’s realization (by which we mean the effective lordship of Christ realized over all creation, resulting in his glory and our joy experienced for all eternity) is a process and it isn’t at an end until Jesus returns. I imagine hell works much the same way. So yes, there are elements of hell - elements that are out of step with the way we’re intended to live by God - present today. But hell in its final reality - completely being cut off from God - is not fully present.
2) In Christian teaching, all ultimate and true good is found in God. Put simply, to be cut off from God is to be cut off from the source of all goodness. Of course, many of us - and this includes Christians - are completely unaware of the ways our behavior alienates us from God. This is a consequence of the reality of sin in the world - sin is so pervasive that it distorts our perceptions so that we are often unaware of its presence. One theologian - Scot McKnight - explains it by saying, “the problem is the problem.” (On a side note, I’m aware that this destroys empiricism as a viable, stand-alone way of knowing. That’s the point. That’s part of the reason one cannot prove God’s existence based on empirical evidence alone. Empiricism can, I think, give one clues that hint at a divine being, but that’s as far as it can get you.)
3) I think one of us is misunderstanding the other on this point. I’m not trying to use Pascal’s wager to make my argument, I’m simply referencing it as a means of making the point that our basic claims are rather similar. Maybe that wasn’t as clear as I wanted it to be. I’m not a Christian because of Pascal’s wager. I agree that it’s gutless. That’s why I called it bs. I was simply trying to make the point that it’s unfair to portray Christian teachings on hell as especially awful because the claims being made by both sides are not that different and whatever differences there are can be easily explained by the content of the belief systems. But the nature of the claims are quite similar. Also, for what it’s worth, I try to make every day count for the same reasons as you :).
4) Ha, you’d make a good Pastafarian ;). I suppose that’s a fair summary, though I’d obviously frame the discussion really differently. As far as accounting for the differences amongst Christians is concerned, I think there are lots of explanations. First, I would say that most Christians throughout our history have been able to agree on certain essentials (I normally point to the Apostle’s Creed as a good statement of those essentials). Second, due to differences in context, variation is to be expected. Thirdly, Christianity - a message of hope to the marginalized that ought to subvert traditional power structures - was taken up by power structures as a means of gaining or obtaining political power. This resulted in the reinterpretation of certain teachings. Fourth, and most basic, I think a Christian understanding of sin and human limitation not only explains the existence of disagreement amongst Christians but should create an expectation that we would disagree.
Finally, yes, there must be a common theme. I’d define that as the apostle’s creed and would honestly not feel comfortable going beyond that as far as identifying who is Christian. Of course, every Christian believes more than what is taught in the apostle’s creed, but none would believe less than what is taught in the creed. If you sat down Mike, myself, and one other Christian, we’d find plenty to disagree on, some of which might be significant, but most of which would probably be rather trivial, but we’d all be able to agree on a basic statement of Christian faith like the Apostle’s Creed (I hope). (OK, real life example: I’m talking to a friend right now that just met a guy from a church we hadn’t heard of. I googled the church, went to the website and immediately found two things: 1) We agree on basic Christian teachings. 2) We disagree quite strongly on the sacraments. This is exactly what I’m talking about in terms of diversity within the church. Say what you want about Christians disagreeing with each other, but we have a remarkable ability to find agreement on the most basic aspects of Christian faith.)
Wooo… the discussion is broadening, which is to be expected, but it may get to a point where we’re completely off topic (if we aren’t already :p). If you want, I’d be happy to continue the discussion via e-mail. (jakemeador@gmail.com)
D Rho said,
May 20, 2008 at 4:34 pm
@ Spurs Fan
To be over simplistic - to my knowledge, God, Jesus, and the Bible never state that those who choose not to come to God are bound for Hell.
I realize I’m a minority in Christianity, but was Jesus Christ, the apostles, the prophets, etc. any different? Yes, the Bible is a sacred text for me as I follow Jesus Christ. What I’m saying is that there is no clear statement in the Bible as to how God forgives or condemns when we live or die. The verse I quoted is one many Christians use to promote the kind of belief system that without God and Jesus you’re damnation is certain. But as a Christian I reject that line of theology becuase it’s a traditional view, not a Biblical view.
It’s saying there is a clear path for those who want to come to God: namely Jesus Christ’s life. This verse is NOT a standard for who goes to Heaven or Hell, it’s a revelation of where the path to the knowledge and experience of God lies. So, just because an atheist chooses to believe there is no god (for good reasons like Christians’ attitudes and actions suck) does not necessarily damn them to hell (even according to our book)!
And I’m not ashamed or bothered about God or Jesus Christ - what I am ashamed and bothered about is the “traditional” thoughts that Christians presume to be based on Scripture, but aren’t.
I don’t know if you’re destined for hell or not. Being a follower of Christ means more than believing the right things - it’s also becoming the right thing. Faith without works the book of James says is dead. I also think Jesus is both admirable and crazy! Some things make sense and others seam like fairy tales and others are completely counter intuitive… but I strive under the Truth that he is real and alive and actually the One who created me and everything else - so I endeavor to be as close to Him as possible. To believe in him is to love him. To love him is to love others. So you see, many people can actually love him without believing in “traditional” dogma. Some get the ethos of Christ, and some get the ethics of Christ. How can we say it’s all about ethics? What about those who are like Christ in their actions? Does the Bible ever make that distinction about who goes to Heaven or Hell?
Did not Jesus die for ALL sin according to the Scriptures?
If you wouldn’t mind quoting the verse you’re talking about here - I would gladly respond with some intelligence (hopefully). I don’t think what I believe is any new religion or theology; granted it is in a minority. I’ll just say that we’re (Christianity) is 2,000 years out of its origins, and so being, we’ve have lost many of the Biblical realities of the faith; which have been replaced with non-Biblical tradition as a standard. For example: church as a building, or anti-alcohol rhetoric, or seperation of clergy and layity, or lobbying for politcal policies… What I’m saying is I’m searching for the real Truth within my religion based on my sacred text the Bible. So I’m going way old-school with it.
That’s a really good point!
I think we’re all compelled as humans to promote what we believe to be true.
Spurs Fan said,
May 20, 2008 at 4:57 pm
D Rho,
I have to leave soon, but I’ll try to comment on a couple of things here:
If you think some things resemble fairy tales and some are counter intuitive, then why hold on to them as truth? What keeps you from using your own mind and rationale to say that they are in fact fairy tales? Why are you “striving” in the first place? Becasue you have faith that the Bible tells you who Jesus is and Jesus tells you what the Bible means?
This sounds like a cop-out, but due to lack of time, I can’t reference the verse (I could by tomorrow, but by then you may have done so for me). I’m thinking of certain sayings or parables — the parable of the man in hell who wanted to return or at least tell his family not to go there because it was so horrible, the analogies of the burning the chaff, and the mention of the “fires of hell” in the beatitudes. In these, Jesus seems to be saying that there is another place/destination without him and that other place is quite brutal. But, if you have a different intepretation of the verse, I promise to hear you out and not just give it the probably-oversimplified label of “gymnastics”.
So, just because an atheist chooses to believe there is no god (for good reasons like Christians’ attitudes and actions suck) does not necessarily damn them to hell (even according to our book)!
(The above was D Rho’s comment)
I sincerely think this completely alienates you from most Christians and maybe even the apostles creed (which states that Jesus will judge me…for what?).
Spurs Fan said,
May 20, 2008 at 5:07 pm
Jake,
You’re right…a bit off topic, so we could continue via email. However, I think most have abandoned this post except for us discussing this.
I understand what you mean. Yet, it still seems like you’re intepreting the Bible in a way that’s even foreign to the apostles creed (what is Jesus judging me for anyway and what’s the sentence?). How can you follow the same person/spirit and still have such differences as most of your fellow bretheren. (and not just sacraments…but, again, hell…Most Christians think there is no way in hell a person who rejects the idea of god could be on the joruney to “heaven”, but you say otherwise…the difference is vast!)
I disagree. If I’m right, you’re deluded, but stil get to live life in a way that makes you happy and fulfilled. Then you die. If you’re right, I (may) either a) be on the road to eternal separation from God OR b) Be on the right path, but not know it due to a widely-divergent set of views from Jesus, the son of God, who could easily solve all of this uncertainty with his magnificent power.
Mike Clawson said,
May 20, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Let me be clear… it is precisely because I “acknowledged” and looked more closely at the difficult parts of my faith that my own beliefs changed.
However, what I also discovered at the same time that these beliefs were changing is that 1) Christian beliefs have always been in a state of conversation and evolution, there is no such thing as some static “orthodoxy”; and 2) my new views on many of these matters, far from being “new”, were in fact resonant with the views many other Christians have also held throughout the centuries, and also with a more educated, contextual, and nuanced view of scripture (in my opinion of course).
So I can choose between a version of my faith that recognizes the diversity and complexity and mutability of Christian beliefs and also takes an intellectual approach to scripture which, incidentally, also helps one make sense of some of the more disturbing Christian beliefs; or I can choose a version that closes its eyes to the historical realities of Christian theological evolution and takes an overly simplistic, non-contextual, and anti-intellectual approach to scripture, and which also then leads them to offensive views of the afterlife that I think are unsupportable on a more scholarly reading of the text.
Which would you choose?
Darryl said,
May 20, 2008 at 11:55 pm
With all due respect, . . . bullshit. You’ve got a boat-load of red herrings in this blurb. You are in conflict with the vast majority of Christians in the world, as you well know. Ask the Pope or the Patriarch of Constantinople if there is an orthodoxy founded upon traditions that stretch back to the Apostolic Fathers. Sheesh, who do you think you’re talking to?
Mike Clawson said,
May 21, 2008 at 1:03 am
As they are with each other.
And yet, ironically, even the Pope and Patriarch can’t quite agree on what that orthodoxy even is. Face it, the Vincentian Canon is an empty set. There’s never been a Christian orthodoxy that has been believed “everywhere, always, and by all”.
Mike Clawson said,
May 21, 2008 at 1:29 am
Though I should also add that on the other hand I am in profound agreement with the majority of them on far more things.
Spurs Fan said,
May 21, 2008 at 7:28 am
Okay..we’ve beaten this to death perhaps. In fact, I think it’s to the point that this would be a great dicussion in person. So, my final thoughts (maybe :))
We’ve been here before Mike, but I have to disagree with you for two reasons: 1) The Bible is all about intepretation and I think you’d have a tough time convincing most Christians that yours is an accurate one. That doesn’t make you wrong, it just means that I feel you are in such a minority, that yours is almost a different religious faith altogether. 2) Even if your way of viewing the Bible and Jesus is more on-point, it’s so loose, that I still have a hard time trying to figure out why Jesus should be exalted “exclusively”. If it’s “the way”, he’s hardly the only one to embrace it. So, why elevate him? The reason is that you believe the he physically rose from the dead and is special because of it. And that, my friend, puts you in the category of most Christians, with the same “Holy Spirit” that comes with the consequence of unbelievers (like atheists) being separated from the “source of all life” for eternity (no matter how you define it, it’s the bad side).
Not on the divinity of Christ and the consequences of those who reject him.
Thanks for the discussion..As someone who’s been in the house of fundamentalism, more “emergent” thinking, and now atheism, I can at least understand the positions put forth here. I hope no one takes offense, but I find disagreement with the first, a lack of courage and sidestepping with the second, and honesty with the latter.
Darryl said,
May 21, 2008 at 10:02 am
Spurs fan, well said.
Mike Clawson said,
May 21, 2008 at 12:32 pm
Well, I’ll just say that in my experience it takes a lot of courage to face the hard questions and differing interpretations of scripture head on and choose to go against one’s evangelical upbringing, to the point of losing friends and employment. You can call that sidestepping if you want, but I call it intellectual honesty.
D Rho said,
May 21, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Spurs Fan,
You raise some very thought provoking questions. I’ve never really asked myself - so I thank you.
Because I believe that the fairy tales can by all means be possible, and that the counterintuitive things are good, even though they contradict my nature or thought processes - it resonates with something more mysterious in me than mere logic. Why should reason and logic be our only guide? Is it possible that there’s something else within us that we can listen to and be guided by? Either my rationale and reasoning is the highest thing in the universe (impossible) that defines truth (and I know so many smarter people… and who knows what else exists out there?) Or there is something greater, more powerful, more reasonable than my limited scope of knowledge, who designed me with the ability to think and live - that defines truth. What I am striving for is to know and experience this God who created me. I’m more than just a mind, I also have a heart, and a spirit - so my faith rests on more than just and the physical (body) or reason (mind), but also in my desires (heart), and the unknowable (spirit). For me, there is more to this life than just reason and knowledge and intelligence. What I’m trying to say is that what defines truth for me is not merely myself or my mind, but something else as well.
Luke 16:19-31
This is in reference to a parable Jesus told. As you know, parables are illustrations meant to show a moral truth, so I don’t think it’s a very realistic portrayal of Hell. In this instance it’s quite clear that the moral truth is justice for all. The rich man has been compared to the religious leaders of the day and the the poor man with sores to the oppressed of the day. In the end God lifts up the humiliated and casts down the proud. It’s about how walking in other people’s shoes can change your outlook on situations - and help you see and feel other people’s pain and despair. There is no clear judgment even being shown as to what the rich man did, other than ignore this broken person. So all he had to do, according to the parable, was care for this man to get into “heaven”. And how did the poor man with sores get in? No judgment clearly defined here.
Matthew 3:1-12
I’m wondering why you feel this is in reference to judgment to Hell. It’s very symbollic speech John the Baptist is using here. For the record, let me state that John was very eccentric and strange, so knowing exactly what he meant here is hard to say. Comparing wheat and chaff and threshing floors and fire and water… What we know of John the Baptist, he was very big on baptism symbolizing repentance of sins. As Jesus later comes on the scene, he begins to claim that Jesus will take away the sins of the world.
The chaff could be deeds, attitudes, posessions, namesakes, beliefs, etc. The wheat could be the opposite of the same. Is there a clear judgment there? Wouldn’t it be manipulating the text to say it definetly states that atheist, Hindus, and Buddhists alike are on the fast track to Hell?
Matthew 5:1-48
The first mention of it: Jesus says that those who say “You fool!’ will be in danger of the fires of hell. The theme here is dealing with the internal peron, not just our actions. We cannot possibly understand with any clarity what Jesus means by being in danger of the fires of hell. Is he referring to right now