Why I am not a Christian (pt 2)

I like Jesus. There are no other ways about that.

I like the Jesus my friends talk about, the one who cares about people that most people don’t care about. I like the Jesus that hangs out with the rejects, the losers, the weak, the unclean, because I see myself in all of these categories. I like the Jesus that challenges others to set the world upside down, the Jesus that responds to the conventional approaches of inequality with wit and brilliance, the Jesus that makes those that come down on others look inward. I like the Jesus that showed the weakness of violence. This Jesus naturally attracts and intrigues me; this Jesus draws me out of my self, and (apologies) fucks up my world.

My facebook religion status is “Read Franny and Zooey.” If you haven’t read this brilliant little treatise on mysticism and religion (ok it’s a novel, but still a treatise), then I humbly ask you to do so. I’d say that “Franny and Zooey” is one of the biggest literary influences on my life, it’s powerful, provocative, and enlightening. But, allow me to share this little passage,

“[Jesus is] only the must intelligent man in the Bible, that’s all! Who isn’t he head and shoulders over? Who? Both testaments are full of pundits, prophets, disciples, favorite sons, Solomons, Isaiahs, Davids, Pauls – but, my God, who besides Jesus really knew which end was up? Nobody.”

This is how I’ve felt about Jesus for a long time. This is how I think a lot of people feel about Jesus, from all religions and philosophical systems. So, when Russell began his critique of Jesus, my mind reeled. After a bit of reading, I realized Russell and I were talking about two completely different versions of Jesus. Russell’s Jesus was still held captive by the stagnant, classist interpretation that has been prevalent since Constantine. (God, I think I invoke the ills of Constantine far too often)

Which brings me to the question Andrew posed; why do I consider myself “not a Christian”

First, I think the term has become and is becoming increasingly more unhelpful. While for many years a Christian to me meant a real true Baptist that held to the core theological positions such as total depravity and pre-millennial dispensationalism, because I was taught true Christians believed these things. Next I learned that it was OK not to believe these things, as long as you held Jesus is Lord and Savior and Fire Insurance, so my idea of the term Christian broadened. Then my own understanding of Christianity changed, and I started seeing Christianity in plenty of people that would never call themselves Christians. For the most part, however, I think when someone uses the term Christian, the mental connotations are that of a narrow minded evangelical. Thus the term both fails to cover me and to actually draw a circle big enough for those who are in it.

Second, I’m not quite certain that I should be placed within that terminology. I don’t hold that God must exist (or does exist). I simply don’t know if an entity we would call God exists, but this idea, that God must and does exist, I think is central to Christianity (again, using the Term in the generally widespread understanding of it).

If you want to call me a Christian because I try to follow Jesus, then go for it. Personally, I’d rather be done with the word, it bears too much baggage.

email2friend
  • Matt
    If you get time listen to this and tell me what you think. http://www.oneplace.com/Ministries/Let_My_People_Think/archives.asp
    I found it interesting when I was listening to it. He mentions Bertrand Russel’s “Why I Am Not a Christian”. He said it is the book that effected his life and made him study and strengthen his faith because he says the arguments in that book eroded the foundation his faith was built on... That was in 1979 . I just thought of you when I heard it.
  • mattrobertson
    Your a good guy matt Scott. Have a good day
  • Thanks?
  • apmapmapm
    Ah. Good. I suspected as much. More later.

    Happy Christmas!
  • D. Foster
    Let me ask a quesiton: who was Jesus? Describe what he said and did, and what were his aims. I ask because you're criticizing Russell for his Constantinian Jesus, but then who are you saying Jesus was and why? How do you sift through the info?

    I'm not just trying to put you in a corner, but I think this is a really important area to clarify. Are you talking about Jesus the historical figure, or Jesus of one of many inspiring legends? In other words, do you follow Jesus like an Aristotle, or do you follow Jesus like a Franny and Zooey?

    And speaking of which, I'll take you up on something. I'll pick up and read "Franny and Zooey" if you'll pick up and read "Phantastes" by George MacDonald. MacDonald was what a lot of people consider a Christian mystic. I absolutely love this guy and this novel in particular. I doubt you've ever read anything like it before. He was a big inspiration for Tolkien and Lewis, though far different from either of them. So if you're interested, let me know when you've started "Phantastes" and I will start on "Franny and Zooey."
  • re: Phantasies, I'll pick it up next time I'm at a bookstore (about once a month).

    Re: Christ, yeah, that needs a post. Good point.
  • Derek F.
    I'll pick up Franny and Zooey, then. And it's actually spelled, "Phantastes." Hard to find, in my experience. Might want to go through Amazon:

    http://www.amazon.com/Phantastes-George-MacDonald/dp/0802860605/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1262122701&sr=1-1
blog comments powered by Disqus
ramblings-theology-my thoughts