大象传媒

Or:

"I won't throw the baby Jesus out with the bathwater."

Two words: "Drama Queen".

For those who think there is something rebellious about professing Christians (i.e. believers in Christ) leaving institutionalised Christianity, perhaps a meditation on Ezekiel chapter 34 might be apposite (taking the liberty to interpret Israel as a type of the Church):

鈥淲oe to the shepherds of Israel who feed themselves! Should not the shepherds feed the flocks? You eat the fat and clothe yourselves with the wool; you slaughter the fatlings, but you do not feed the flock. The weak you have not strengthened, nor have you healed those who were sick, nor bound up the broken, nor brought back what was driven away, nor sought what was lost; but with force and cruelty you have ruled them. So they were scattered because there was no shepherd; and they became food for all the beasts of the field when they were scattered. My sheep wandered through all the mountains, and on every high hill; yes, my flock was scattered over the whole face of the earth, and no one was seeking or searching for them.鈥�

OK, so this applies to Israel but the principle can apply to the Christian Church. If those in religious leadership abuse their authority, then their flock may be scattered. This is why, at times, I am amazed at the lack of sympathy in some quarters of the church towards so-called 'churchless Christians'. Perhaps if those in leadership understood that Christians are not supposed to be a captive audience to be relieved of their money, time, intelligence and self-respect, then they may begin to grasp why many committed Christians are sick and tired of organised religion.

This thread also poses another question: how is a church defined? How small can a group be in order to be called 'a church'? Jesus' words in Matthew 18:20 suggests only two or three people. So the emphasis there is on fellowship (presumably like-minded fellowship), not on membership of some large institution. Sounds liberating to me.

So if Anne Rice has spiritual fellowship with another like-minded person in the name of Christ, then has she really left the Church?

Parrhasios

I think you will understand if I say that your 鈥榬aised eyebrows鈥� make it easier for me to respond. I had rather suspected we would have our own version of the rush the to Facebook altar, a kind of virtual genuflection, but perhaps it is still to come.

What interests me, however, on this occasion is not that I feel a pressing need to question her 鈥楥hrist鈥�, or her version of what it means to be 鈥楥hrist鈥檚-one鈥� (I can鈥檛 say 鈥楥hristian鈥�, can I?); rather, what interests me is that my most immediate impulse is to recoil almost entirely from any use of the word 鈥楥hrist鈥� as a signifier or badge of who I am.

This may seem somewhat contradictory given the worldview you know I have, but I will try to explain.

It has, it seems, become rather fashionable to speak of the end of 鈥楥hristendom鈥�, I have done so myself, and in the sense that the institutions of 鈥楥hristendom鈥� have shown some signs of fraying, it is, to a degree, accurate. I also note that this business of identifying oneself in some way or other as a follower of 鈥楥hrist鈥� but not the church, is rather 鈥榙u jour鈥�, much in the same way that when I was growing up we were 鈥楥hristians鈥� and not 鈥楶rotestants鈥�. But it鈥檚 all a bit, 鈥淵eah, baby, yeah.鈥�

The trouble I have, however, runs deeper than mere reminiscence or amusement; on a more thorough reflection of my own use of the description, 鈥楩ollower of Jesus鈥�, or 鈥楥hristian鈥�, or 鈥� Follower of Christ鈥� or 鈥楻eformed鈥� or whatever, I find that if I am honest it is often an exercise in self justification, it is my 鈥榓pologetic鈥� for *me*, and, as such, has little to do with 鈥楥hrist鈥�. This is me separating myself from those who are 鈥榥ot Christ鈥檚鈥�, you know, those ones over there... This is me using 鈥楥hrist鈥� to affirm my own thinking, my own living... and in the end I see that it is about *me*, and I am increasingly uncomfortable.

From time to time in church we sing a song with the words, 鈥淎nd it's all about You,鈥↖t's all about You, Jesus鈥�... it rarely is.

I'm not sure what kind of a 'christian' Anne Rice has been up until now, but being a real Christian also involves belonging to the Church Jesus founded. As John Stott said: 'A Christian without a church?...the New Testament knows nothing of such a monster!'

My guess is that she simply cannot stomach Biblical teacings she finds uncomfortable, and that is very sad - because the further you go from Scripture, the greater your distance from God.

Pastor Phillip (#5)

What's more important? Being a part of a Church or being a Christian? I suspect Anne Rice is fed up with people setting down a mandate that their interpretation of the bible is the only true one. Given the vast array of interpretations available, I'm suprised she's not found one to her liking, but far too many denominations look reasonable but then get all fire and brimstone over minor points liks same-sex relationships, female ordination or creationism. None of which are mentioned in any of the recorded sayings of Jesus (who is the be all and end all of all christianity - or at least he should be)

From my understanding, perhaps the Quakers or the Unitarianist Church would be more to her liking.

Perhaps she should join the Church of Jesus Christ Atheist?

There are enough wilderness-walkers that Anne's move may be seen as something of an indulgence.

What chance do we have of moving the Church away from its enclosed and regressive spiral into alienation and privilege if everyone who notices a problem chooses to leave rather than change it?

We need people like Anne Rice, but we need them on the Inside where they can make a difference. If the greatest obstacle to our work is the Church itself, then what sense is it to surrender ones position of influence over it?

There are enough of us sitting on the outside of the Church trying to challenge it constructively. We don't need more. We need like-minded people on the inside to evaluate and respond to that challenge. It's not always pleasant, and it's not easy, but that's part-and-parcel of living with Christ; dealing with corruption and deprivation on the front lines, rather than staying in the desert full-time.

Send her an invite Helio! :-)

Anne Rice is simply seeing christianity the way the rest of us see it, an infighting, hateful, boring and self obsessed group. Christ is nowhere to be seen.

Based on the comments attributed above to Ms Rice I have to sympathise with LSV post3.

I dont think there is anything new or controversial about this.

Isnt this what the emergent church was based on?

Ah well, it fills a thread and creates a few website hits...

What happened? Did somebody try to edit her? Because I know she will not allow one single syllable of her deathless vampire crap to be touched by the filthy hand of an editor, which is the main reason why it's crap. Does anybody here really care what she thinks, or does she actually believe thousands are going to follow her out into whatever desert she's going to be walking through?

Dunno - she's the one doing the following; people have been flooding out of organised religion in their droves for years. Personally I hate vampire nonsense - it is so utterly superficial and American Teen. One difficulty with her view would be that "Christ" is an artificial construct; it was never a real person, and it means different things to different people. If people think there *is* a real Christ to get close to, they are deluding themselves.

Helio, I don't see it as problematic for the idea of being "committed to Christ" were Jesus to have been a fabricated icon (or a lumping together of various messiah cults, or a real guy who was misrepresented by a minor Jewish sect, or whatever the current thinking is).

Religious language is, and always has been, man-made. Why should any hypothesis about the "unreality" of Jesus alter the semantics of Christ-talk? It's kinda like Astrology, in some respects. It's not really the Stars that're gving you advice, but the people who write the columns.

As it turns out, Christ-talk can be quite useful. Metaphor, Parable, Example, a common language for the grasp of contradiction and the true absurdity of reality beyond the self, a framework for art and culture, are just a few I can think of.

Admittedly, this language can be misused, and people have a tendency to misunderstand the nature of Language itself, but is this reason enough to discard it? The freedom to dissent can be misused (and has, frequently, in Northern Ireland), but that's no reason to deny it to people.

And of course, I happen to agree that the historical Jesus is as real as any other historical being (ie: historical reality as essentially conventional), I happen to agree with the need for some chaotic but apparently consistent gap between humanity and "the Ultimately Real" (that we might as well call God for all the difference a Name makes), and I happen to agree with the need for the proactive and compassionate transformation of the world we live in. The Christian paradigm is as useful as any at getting these various ideas across, especially given the need for public involvement in the latter.

Christ is not exclusive to Jesus. The Christ is the love/light of the soul conscious plane and can be embodied by each person such that they can become Christ or be Christ - that most people do not is because of lack of awareness re how to and the bastardisation of teachings around Christ and making it exclusive to Jesus. So Helio - even you can embody the CHrist never mind get close to - that you don't is perhaps because you have been deluded to believe otherwise! :-)

The problem is that religion and church are being confused in this discussion.

Church means community. A community needs some basic rules. These rules should not necessarily require adherence to a religious viewpoint. People of different religious viewpoints should be able to live in the same community and abide by the same basic rules.

A religious community that requires commitment to its particular religious viewpoint is sectarian, and devisive, and contrary to the teachings attributed to Jesus. Such a community should shut itself away on a remote island. A Christian church/community cannot claim Jesus as its founder. The global church/community must accommodate all religious viewpoints, and none.

The Ten Commandments separate the religious requirements of the early Jewish community from the secular requirements. They were written on two separate tablets of stone. Jesus too separated, and condensed, those two aspects into "Love God (whatever your concept of God might be) and love your fellow human being". He did not say "Love me and become a Christian". Christianism was a Pauline invention.

Dennis

@PaulR,
I really like your style, my man! I also find it very hard to disagree with much that you're saying here; you should consider contributing a few helpful corrective remarks to the [Mods, please leave the link intact]; I think you would have an interesting perspective to add to the rather one-dimensional musings over there. For what it's worth, I think rather a lot of Christians recognise that "God" is a term we have made up; for many it has outlived its usefulness; for others it retains some relevance, despite the fact that as Christians they no longer "believe" in Jesus as a resurrected messiah. Your points about parable and metaphor are well made.
Cheers,
-H

PaulR: I happen to agree with the need for some chaotic but apparently consistent gap between humanity and "the Ultimately Real" (that we might as well call God for all the difference a Name makes),

What if there is no 'gap' and that believing there is a 'gap' is the root of our problems??

attention seeker

Funny, that's what they said about Jesus.

Since the Bible teaches that Jesus Christ was 'God manifest in flesh', and since He Himself said '...you believe in God, believe also in Me..' (John 14v1), to speak of the 'Church of Jesus Christ Atheist' is clearly a contradiction in terms.

Because of the overwhelming evidence, some of us have no problem accepting both that Jesus Christ was a historical figure and that He rose from death three days after He died on the Cross. If there were any question about those facts, there simply would not be a Christian Church today.

Pastorphilip,
Because of the overwhelming evidence, some of us have no problem accepting both that Jesus Christ was a historical figure and that He rose from death three days after He died on the Cross.

I thought this was a matter of faith, what you are saying is that this is not a discussion about religion but about historical fact.

There is obviously a question about these 'facts', the questions appear on here every day so your last statement is self defeating as by your logic there is no christian church today. Some would say that the present day church, especially the evangelical right wing branch, are nothing like the church christ taught about, so maybe you are right.

PastorPhillip (#21)

Because of the 'overwhelming evidence', some people have no problem accepting both that Mohammed/Buddha/Hare Krishna was a historical figure and that he was the prophet of god/guide to enlightenment/avatar of Shiva. if there were any questions about those facts, there simply would not be Islam/Buddhism/Krisha Consciousness today.

Explain to me how all 'faiths' claim historical accuracy and evidence and also claim to be true, but all contradict each other.

Which one is right and how do you prove it's yours?

For the bible tells him so.

Many Christians recognise that the gospels contain factual errors and hyperbole, as well as frank propaganda. But the Church of Jesus Christ Atheist is alive and well, and in Phil's Congregation whether he wishes to acknowledge it or not. These are not people with "doubts", but people who know that the supposed "overwhelming historical evidence" for the resurrection is actually a sham or mirage.

Helio,
For the bible tells him so , or maybe "For the Bible Tells Me So."

PastorPhil really should watch the documentary of that name. The one quote I found apposite to him (made by a christian minister) is

'bible literalists cannot enter into debates, they can only make pronouncements'

There are a number of interesting aspects to this thread each related to the need (and need it would appear to be) to use the label 鈥楥hrist鈥� or 鈥楯esus鈥�. What interests me, given my earlier comments is why some find it necessary (or at the very least useful) to use what PaulR has called 鈥楥hrist-talk鈥� or I might add 鈥楯esus-talk鈥�. What, for example, is Anne Rice achieving by saying that she quit being a Christian but remains committed to Christ? Why, if she is anti 鈥楥hristianity鈥� as she has defined it, does she use the word 鈥楥hrist鈥� at all? What is her motivation here? What is her use of the word 鈥楥hrist鈥� bringing to her decision or current position?

In the same way, Helio, why use the reference 鈥楯esus Christ鈥� in your Church of Jesus Christ Atheist? For that matter why use the word 鈥榗hurch鈥�. What do these words bring to your position? Why not simply promote a 鈥榲irtual community of atheists/humanists鈥� based on the ethical teachings of a variety of people, historical and contemporary? Infact why not throw 鈥楽cooby Doo鈥� into your mix, *none* of it is real, right? Why not call it Disneyanity.

A number of things follow:

In adopting the position of 鈥楯esus鈥� as an historical ethical figure but not divine, one is choosing to ignore how those closest to him wrote and spoke of him. Why would an atheist wish to be associated with those who thought of Jesus as 鈥業 Am鈥�? To reclaim the 鈥楴ame鈥�? To rebut classic Christian teaching? To affirm, in a cultural or personal sense, or lend weight to one鈥檚 own thinking?

In using the word 鈥楥hrist鈥� without the 鈥楥hurch鈥� and perhaps without 鈥楯esus鈥� (which Anne Rice seems to have done) one must be meaning something other than, 鈥楯esus - God鈥檚 King鈥�. In what sense then is the word 鈥楥hrist鈥� used, and *why* use it?

Are we simply talking about and describing a preferred view of the world and then pouring 鈥楯esus鈥� or 鈥楥hrist鈥� into that thinking?

Why would a materialist/naturalist want to use the word 鈥楥hrist鈥� at all? What can it possibly mean in this context?


Perhaps some are using the words 鈥楯esus鈥� or 鈥楥hrist鈥� in the self-affirming way I suggested earlier, in the 鈥淚 am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ鈥�, way, where the term 鈥楥hrist鈥� is used merely as the most potent affirmation of one鈥檚 position, of one鈥檚 self. Why affirm oneself in this way?

Perhaps it might be useful to explore how and why we use such terms.

PaulR has suggested that 鈥楥hrist-talk鈥� is useful, a framework for speaking of that which is beyond us, but why 鈥楥hrist鈥�, why not just speak of what is *human* or *tribal* or *cultural*? Why not? And note how Paul has slipped between the use of words like 鈥榬eligious鈥� and 鈥楥hrist鈥� and 鈥楯esus鈥� and 鈥榗ulture鈥�. Why?

Used in this sense, 鈥楥hrist-talk鈥� will most certainly be 鈥榤an-made鈥� for it is simply the cherry on the top of my way of looking at the world. It is to 鈥楥hristen鈥� my thinking, to 鈥榖less鈥� my way of doing things, it is the plum I pulled out of my pie and at which I am very pleased. It is my pronunciation that what I have created is 鈥榞ood鈥�.

What it isn鈥檛, is worship. (Not of Jesus anyway.)

PastorPhillip: I could say because of the overwhelming evidence Jesus did not physically rise from death 3 days later - and that would not in any way alter or denigrate my understandings re God and life and what happens at/after death. If the Christian church's only pillar is the physical resurrection (as opposed to spiritual continuation) then what happens if/when that pillar is shown to be false?? There is a deeper level of understanding re: life/God and the human journey that does not require any physical resurrection and has very practical application in day to day life - maybe the Christian church needs to consider some of these understandings (which some individual Christians are aware of) if it is to survive the eventual collapse of this one pillar??

2MP: lots of questions!! There are many different understandings and applications of Christ and Jesus as you imply/mention - probably everyone here will have a different take on it. How I understand CHrist will be different to you and to Helio I reckon (and prob many others!). Theologically many make the distinction between Jesus the person and the Christ that is not necessarily related to the person of Jesus. Some talk about CHrist consciousness as something that each person can acquire or develop or grow and is not exclusive to the person of Jesus but just that he was the first to embody it on earth that we know of.

For me, it refers energetically to the love/light of God in embodiment - again this is something that each person can embody and is not exclusive to Jesus. So I can understand why people say (and I have heard more than a few say this) that they have time for Christ but can't stand Christianity or the CHristian Church. Some may have been referring to the person Jesus - but some also refer to the energy or consciousness of the CHrist - the love of God in embodiment. In a way that is the journey many are on - to be Christ and could be said that that is the purpose of Christianity - to develop each person in Christ, that they embody the love of God and serve with that love in all that they do/say/think etc

Peter, have you actually visited the website and read the material? You will find your concerns addressed :-) The gospel of John has little of historical value to offer us, it is very late.

Helio

You know very well that I have visited the website, have commented, and have, of course, read much of what is there, indeed many of my (rhetorical) questions allude to its content. My objections, though, remain.

If it is we who confer the title 鈥楥hrist鈥� on Jesus then we must have some understanding of what that means. If it is to mean the 鈥榤ain character鈥�, or one of them, in the narrative of human life then that is quite different from what many of his earliest followers said about him. (of course within the former framework, Scooby Doo could be 鈥楥hrist鈥� just as much as anyone or anything else, indeed the words, 鈥渨here are you?鈥�, in the theme tune are perfect for an atheist hymn - just another of the beloved invisible pink unicorns - a 鈥楥hrist鈥� who isn鈥檛 there - a mere 鈥榮ky pixie鈥�.)

If you wish 鈥渢o engage with Theistic Christians and to participate fully in the life of churches in an ethical and responsible way, without having to short-circuit their (your) brains into "believing" what they (you) know to be untrue.鈥� then I, unreservedly, am going to say why I鈥檓 in the pew with you. And that means when I sing Psalm 130, 鈥淟et Israel hope in the Lord, for with him mercies be; And plenteous redemption is ever found with him.鈥� there is a resonance to the word 鈥楥hrist鈥�/鈥楲ord鈥� which guarantees the hope.

What I fail, however, to understand is this: Why trade on the name 鈥楯esus the Christ鈥�? If he is merely someone I anoint 鈥榝igurehead鈥� of my life, some cultural reference point, isn鈥檛 it time we moved on? Sure, he鈥檚 the subject of great art and music and architecture and an inspiration to many, but can鈥檛 we get someone else? Isn鈥檛 Jesus just old hat? Some people on here don鈥檛 even think him a good role model. Perhaps William might run a new thread :-) ...鈥漇uggestions for an Atheist 鈥楥hrist鈥� Figure.鈥� (if he could stomach the oxymoron!)

If I were an atheist I鈥檇 call the 鈥榢ahuna鈥�, sing a song about my surfboard and wait for the waves. That is what I would worship.

I'll put it another way, if the 'church' does someday become 'The Church of Jesus Christ Atheist' (and it might), complete with celebrity Archbishop fulfilling a purely cultural function, I *won't* be there.


As for 'John', I hear it was written by some guy called 'Q', just after he modified the Aston Martin.

2MP, #26 aims squarely between the lines of what I'm talking about. Though I should point out that the way I've used "Christ" and "Jesus" is not interchangable. I take Christ as a Title, and Jesus as a Name; one is merely a signifier of perhaps arbitrary semantic value, based on the Christian Mythology, while the other rigidly designates a human/possibly divine being. If "Christ" does actually refer to Jesus, then this because the current conventional Christian theological understanding of the messiah figure is correct.

The essence of my claim is simply that "Christ", "Christian" and "Follower of Christ" are all basically social, culture and arbitrary. If Christianity collectively decided tomorrow that Paul was actually the Holy Spirit, then such would be the Christian message, and the understanding of Christ would correspondingly shift to factor in this adjustment. When we use Christ, we by necessity tag on a particular conceptual framework to any reference to Jesus. Once this framework is established, Jesus is essentially unnoticed, since it is the story that is told, the consequences of that story and the assertion that the story is True that completely capture everything Christ-talk has to say.

What makes this kind of talk quite useful is the way it establishes a linguistic bridge to the unknown. Christ-talk has oft been (correctly) accused by science of calming investigative endeavour; one of the reasons for this is that its framework conceptually encapsulates the ever-present gap between man and God/True Reality/Chaos/The Ultimate Being/Whatever you want to call it, such that no apparent need for further explanation is required.

This doesn't tell us much at all about that God Jesus is held to have identified with. The traditional Christian analysis is just a theory of God, one that could turn out drastically wrong (and, I tend to think, has). It frustrates me immensely that many who would identify themselves as Christian refuse to acknowledge its theoretical nature, and fetishise the theory over the being. Faith, it is sometimes claimed, is about accepting the theory in the lack of evidence. And I think the worry that this is orthodoxy is well-placed.

What I suggested was that Christ without Jesus would be no loss to Christianity. The converse and more fundamental worry is this: Would the existence of a Jesus but no Christ undermine Christianity? If so, or if it's impossible for Christianity to acknowledge the distinction, it isn't something I'd want to be a part of either.

Paul, you really are *good* at this! Have you further writings we can have a look at? I'd be interested.

Peter, the purpose of the CCL (Christianity Compatibility Layer) is to enhance dialogue, understanding, and also to open the shutters and let in a bit of light. You're right - Jesus/Kahuna - no problem. As the FSM shows, you can choose whatever nucleus you want. For me, I've moved past it, although I recognise where I've been. A lot of people, however, do feel trapped - I think you dismiss too easily the need for community. As time moves on, the churches will of course have to wake up to the fact that a significant proportion of their congregations do not *believe* the myths, but use them as narrative frameworks for a philosophy that is nonetheless open and adaptive.

No bad thing, eh? Besides, it's no extra work on anybody's part. It's not about *making* churches atheist.

As for the John / Q thing, it's difficult to tell whether you're making a funny or not - your jokes are usually quite good, and that one didn't quite smash the pi帽ata :-). Q and John are of course two different documents entirely; John post-dates Q by several decades at least. Pay attention, 007!

(Maybe I should change my name to James?)
Cheers,
-H

PaulR

I'm a bit tight for time but this is a conversation I think worth pursuing; however we may have to take quite a few steps back in order to understand each other more fully. For example, what Helio and I do with your words could be two quite different things entirely!!

Let's try here as a starting point, even if it's a few days before I get back.

Take me further down this road: "Once this framework is established, Jesus is essentially unnoticed, since it is the story that is told, the consequences of that story and the assertion that the story is True that completely capture everything Christ-talk has to say."

The reason I ask is that while I see what you are saying, I do not think that there is any need for Jesus to go unnoticed, rather if he is indeed the Messiah/Christ then to notice him is all the more important. Perhaps what we need to do is to look longer and harder at Jesus in order to see who/what the Christ/Messiah is and in so doing, see God.



James

Sorry my little quip turned out to be a bit of a groaner I just couldn't face another, 'Gospel'? 'Reliable'? 'Oh yes it is...."!

And, no, I don't underestimate community, not at all, it runs much deeper than that!:-)

Pete, even where we want to get to know and understand Jesus, rather than Christ, we're stuck when it comes to how to do that. There're basically two methodological options - History and Holy Spirit. The question with both is to what extent they exist independently of current Christology.

The relationship of Biblical History to the machinations of the Church should be well known, though obviously no conclusive answer can be given as to what extent the current bible is an accurate account of what Jesus intended Christianity to accomplish. On the other hand, we might think that the Holy Spirit is a bit of an unwarranted stipulation, just put in place to make the standard Christian account work. God-in-us is an interesting idea, but isn't it firstly and foremostly an idea, even if God is given concrete identity through Jesus? The circularity of justification the Holy Spirit provides, we might think, is reason enough to think of it as something that's been put in place for the sake of systemic harmony.

If this is accepted, we have no direct line of reference to Jesus, and the framework of ideas is the best we can hope for. This might not be the end of it, since Jesus' observer-independent existence might be better reflected through some approaches and narrations than others, but that curtain is beyond human faculty to cross.

Of course, since Christ-talk aims at the transcendence of observable reality anyway, in using it and treating its ideas constructively, we push back the boundaries of what can't be conceptualised. The circularity might make it less plausibly trustable, but it nonetheless serves as a framework for inspiration, through which some relevant result to actually finding God might some day appear. Is this good enough? Probably not, but it's better than nothing!

Mind you, this does suggest that current Christianity is not the only technique for approaching Jesus' God, or even necessarily a good one. But it is one, and the Christian story gives a good and meaningful account of its problem and intentions through metaphor and example. What's more, it's a technique constantly being refined and practiced by a great many people already, exploring the edges of human living through charity, outreach, art, literature, science and healthcare. I would rather see that work allowed to flourish than collapse under the weight of self-satisfied ideological freeloaders who think the world revolves around their personal quest for immortality.

Paul

The way I鈥檓 reading you is that there are a multitude of thoughts there to grapple with, and while I鈥檓 more than happy to do that, it will take time and it may necessitate us going slowly. I鈥檓 certainly not going to shoot you down for asking the questions or raising the issues, nor am I going to fire off an off the shelf answer. Indeed if I understand them correctly they are similar to some I have asked myself.

Where to begin, or continue to begin, however?!

I鈥檒l try this first.

鈥淗istory and Holy Spirit鈥�. Conjunctive and or disjunctive and?

Do they need to be independent of current Christology, why is this important to you, and whose Christology are you thinking of?

I ask that last part of the question because you say this, 鈥淚 would rather see that work allowed to flourish than collapse under the weight of self-satisfied ideological freeloaders who think the world revolves around their personal quest for immortality.鈥� Are you thinking of any persons in particular, any particular expression of Christianity in particular? It鈥檚 just like that kind of comment sounds like an exasperation with a particular theological brand, and if that is the case, that could be understandable. (infact it probably is understandable!)

I do agree though, the 鈥汉辞飞鈥� question is an issue and it鈥檚 one I鈥檝e moved quite considerably on. Or perhaps I should say, bounced around like a ball in a pinball machine!! And that kind of question is often influenced by our previous experience of 鈥楥hristianity鈥� too.

Hmmm. Paul, not for the first time, I think you are saying things that could be *very* relevant to the CJCA. Peter, hearken unto him!

I can understand why this person has come to this decision. I have been hurt in the past by people proclaiming to be Christians and I myself may have inadvertantly hurt my fellow believers. At the end of the day as a Christian my 1st priority is a personal relationship as Jesus Christ as my Saviour. Whatever happens in any Church fellowship (and I have seen some right ones)I will always attend a place of worship and contribute to that church's funds. As Christians we are exorted by Paul in his writings to never to "abandon the fellowship of belivers". I know of a couple that they where deeply hurt by a church fellowship, the (man was an elder), they have left that church and are attending another, paying into that church though not getting involved in the full fellowship of that church. Ideally as christians we should be active in the church to which God has called us, but we can be as effective for the Lord outside our church and I believe that the couple I personally know and others like them they are obeying our Lord's command to be faithful servants.

I note the idea that some people find 'the Christian paradigm' a useful framework within which to 'do' morality, to find some kind of perspective, meaning and 'shape' to their ultimately futile lives. Of course, in the minds of these 'paradigmists' the word 'God' is regarded as a mere ornament, a kind of sad, though curious, nostalgia to something that never was, a monument to a certain stage in man's putative evolutionary development; a kind of communal 'focus' or mythic mental monad that gathers up all one's metaphysical longings.

I must admit that I'm someone who really does not do 'Christian paradigm' very well. In fact, I don't do 'Christian paradigm' at all. The whole idea of it is a case of the secular world trying to patronise believers with the following 'assurance': "Well, of course, we know that your God (or any god) doesn't actually exist, but we fancy ourselves as affable and tolerant people, and so we are sure that we can find some place in our wonderful new society for some form of 'Christian perspective' - as a kind of souped up moral philosophy. We need the church as a kind of moral sounding board; a sort of 'link' to our national heritage. It's useful culturally, even if it is built on a myth. After all, 'myths' are useful stories that paint for each of us an interesting personal metanarrative, aren't they?"

And my response to this? My analysis is encapsulated in one gloriously evocative word; a term which the moderators generously allowed through their sieve (in post 12). And the word is? That's right: crap.

Yes, this kind of despiritualised, deconstructed, and ontologically depredated vestigial Christianity is worthy of only one judgement: it has about as much value as the substance we normally associate with the above quoted vernacular term.

If Christianity is merely a paradigm, merely an ethical philosophy or a cultural wall hanging to provide the intellectually effete with a fleeting sense of moral refinement; if it is mere psychology or emotionally utilitarian historical nostalgia, then I am not a Christian, never have been and never will be. In fact, I am an enemy of that kind of Christianity. Frankly, the idea of 'Christian atheism' is laughable. If I were philosophically naive enough (and, dare I say it, personally bitter enough) to become an atheist, you can bet your bottom dollar that I would not want to hang on to the trappings of Christianity. I'm not a glutton for that kind of boredom or psychological disengagement.

Authentic Christianity stands or falls on the felt reality of God. Period. As the Apostle Paul said: "If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable."

An unbelieving church (whether overtly or covertly) deserves to die, in my opinion (so if much of the church is really composed of atheists, then let's rejoice in those surveys, which chart the rapid decline in church attendance! And as one vociferous sceptic so memorably put it on another thread, let them die a 'whiney death'!). I want nothing to do with this kind of Christianity. I certainly wouldn't feel under any obligation to pay hard earned or any other kind of money to that sort of church (not that the church should be obsessed with relieving anyone of their money, anyway). And if every church in one's vicinity is 'of the merely psychological and cultural kind', then better to have a solitary walk with the real and living God, than cavort with a bunch of dishonest atheists prancing around in fancy dress.