Q: How do I stop being a Christian? A: (The cynic says) Die: no labels there, wherever "there" is. I've been reading of many who say "I'm no longer a Christian". I wondered what circumstances drove them to that decision. I know that for myself on (very rare) occasions the temptation has arisen. How does one stop being a Christian? People definitely do drift away; some to blandness, some into the arms of different religions, some to atheism, and often to a life where it simply becomes too much effort to actively remove the label while continuing to live as if God does not. I thought I would try to work out how to stop being a Christian. First, I think the options all depend on which of three possible types of Christian you are. 1. Are you a Christian by identification? This is the easiest category and probably applies to most people living in developed nations; you've had the label stuck onto you by family and/or friends and/or culture, but you never actively chose it for yourself. If you're this type of Christian all you have to do is peel the label away and then deal with that irritating residual glue. For some this can be tricky, and if it proves to be so then I advise a judicious application of drink or drugs, recreational sex, hedonism, and a dash of ambition flavoured by moral relativism; that will surely remove all evidence that the label was ever there. 2. Are you a Christian with a God-object? This is a bit more tricky, and probably covers a big category of religious people. Such a Christian usually began as a category 1 Christian - growing up with the label - someone who has chosen to "give it a go" because it seems to serve a purpose in their lives. God (whoever that really is) is often seen as something - a nebulous "object" - that can be appealed to in order to resolve problems, prayed to for relief of suffering, called upon to supply your needs (self-perceived or even very real needs), and who provides a comforting reference in a world of ambiguity. This sort of Christian is willing to (mostly) do the necessary behavioural tasks to achieve this. The analogy is that of a citizen living by the culture of their nation, and appealing to the governing authorities for their rights; one might be seeking a court injunction in the case of a perceived injustice, or claiming one's access to social services, pension, or national health, or simply pleading for help because you're a "citizen" (and good luck with that - the success rate of this approach is so low its no wonder you're considering how to ditch your label). If you're dissatisfied with your Christian label because you seem to be getting nothing for it, then you have a number of options. You can declare yourself atheist (or agnostic .... although I'm not sure true agnosticism exists) and learn to live with the fact that ultimately you've only got yourself to depend on when things are tough. Loneliness, stress, and a plethora of other issues will be solely up to you to deal with. If you don't like that idea, your best option is adopt a citizenship elsewhere. Pick another religion, any one will do because its going to be about as effective as the version of Christianity you're trying to discard. Alternatively, you could decide to become an anarchist ... quite a few people choose "new atheism" and become an activist for the overthrow of Christian authority. Or you could decide to be especially subversive and keep the Christian label, but instead define your own brand of theology as so many people are doing now days. This has the advantage that you get to keep the bits of Christianity that you like without all those awkward pieces that make you uncomfortable. And you still get to be known as a "spiritual" person -- even perhaps being seen as especially wise because you've had "insight" to go beyond the boundaries of the bible. In reality it won't make much actual difference to the results you're seeking from God, but it might lessen your guilt feelings for awhile and will probably boost your peer rating among some people. Who knows, one day you may even go on to found a new denomination. 3. Are you a Christian by experience? This is the really tough one, because "by experience" means you've known the love and intimacy of God, known Jesus as a brother and his presence in your life. These sort of Christians are those who have acquired their label by deliberate choice, and then experienced a clear change in their life (sometimes dramatically so). Even if now that vitality seems to have dimmed, you can't deny the experience. So, taking off this Christian label is like choosing divorce when the relationship seems to have cooled (or perhaps you've committed adultery that's caused a rift you're not particularly keen to admit, or heal). In this case, taking off the label of Christian will require some degree of acrimony and aggression on your part, because it won't be initiated from the other side. When you're in a family your father is your father because that is what he is, not because you chose him to be. Even if you deny him, he's still your father. Similarly, in a marriage your spouse is your spouse, and even if you deny it this does not change the fact. You can change circumstances so you have an estranged father, or an estranged ex-spouse, but they will forever have been your father or your spouse. Your denial of them does not change this fact. Thus, to stop being a Christian (type 3) is not simply a case of pretending that God does not exist; you've known he does. In this case your best solution is to become an activist for an opposing cause ... I guess atheism is probably the logical choice. For when you know from experience that something is real, your only long term option is to join the opposition. Denial can work temporarily, even for many years. You could try and live as a type 2 Christian and pretend that God was only ever a delusion. But you can never completely remove the story of your experience; that will be with you till the day you die (when it will be especially real to you). The experience will niggle and itch, it will disturb you in those quiet moments of extreme alone'ness, and you'll want to rub that spot every time it recurs. Remember that God will not want to let you go; God is a very reluctant divorcee and will fight the divorce every step of the way and then take you back at a moments notice - but he's God, and will only do so on his terms. What am I? I'm a type 3 Christian, and proud of my label. I'm not in it for what I can get (although I get a lot), I'm wearing the label because reason and experience tells me that in the same way as it would be stupid not to respect gravity, so I believe I would be a fool to ignore God. I can't put a label on God to define him as I would like (that's illogical, because then he couldn't be a God) - but I do understand that God defines me. In all the years of my life, no other label has ever made sense (and I've explored many), and no other label has ultimately satisfied my real needs. At the end of the day, we all inevitably wear some label.
0 Comments
(If you can't smile at the title, try again). One might argue that the church is generating a bunch of emasculated metrosexual men. Too strong? Yes, probably. But we do live with a much more nuanced definition of what it means to be male. Within the local church the topic of maleness is poorly addressed, and the global church instead panders to the sensitivities of multiple communities for fear of offending any one perspective (and thereby losing even more people to this post-Christian world). Simultaneously it seems there is an unthinking adoption by the church of many cultural norms in order to (obsequiously?) try and be "relevant". In both ways we miss the target. It's not about 7 steps to find success, or 3 ways to please your lover. What's wrong with churches taking a strong stand, and with building strong people who can stand against the current when needed? Why is it that society sees fit to involve itself with defining religion, yet it is not acceptable for religious people to bring their perspective to define secular society? What's wrong with the Christians saying things like "you're wrong", "I disagree", "that's heresy"? The secular world uses much stronger words in speaking about the church. If Christ is our standard, and if we say we're Christians, then where is the Christ compassion that is properly balanced with righteous anger; where is the authority that sets the godly goal and will even at times (sadly) close the door on those who will not agree, rather than compromise in an effort to find acceptance in the name of relevance? (I leave it to you to find the many relevant scriptures on these issues). I read this essay on why men are leaving the church; the 9 points raised are issues that churches would do well to reflect on. For example, why do most men older than 35 not have a close personal friend? What is male sexuality - and by the way, when did you last hear a sermon on male sexuality that was actually relevant to living with the reality of sexual pressures from the ever-earlier pubescence and ever-later marriage? Most men want relevant insight on the daily stress of living with the world's unrealistic expectations, not to be lost in intricacies of multi-layered and opaque biblical theology. Men are supposed to be intimate and introspective in emotive worship, whereas most of them would rather be in action to see great works accomplished. As for the church herself (and without trying to be sexist): in our current world the practical reality is that leadership is dominated by men. So if the men are not there, then we have a void in leadership. Lets relearn how to do manly men's ministry. I recently read a thought provoking essay of one man's journey from Catholicism to where he ended up building a church of atheism. Along the way he passed through sectarianism (dealing with die-hard adherents of different sects), syncretism (the combination of different forms of belief or practice), personal relational stresses as he chose to disbelieve God, and how to lovingly raise a family with no spiritual reference point (Story is here).
At the same time I've been reading perspectives such as "God is not an object", and about evangelistic atheism, and digging into Chesterton's unique expose of a reasonable faith. In all this two thoughts strike me: about how deeply embedded this is in the society I daily engage with, yet which goes mostly unrecognised; and how easily human logic can reinforce a "what's in it for me" reasoning that leads a person down an alleyway of self-defined values and ultimately into nihilism. If there is no God, fine. If there is ...? I live mostly surrounded by nice people; "good" people, who have morals that largely steer their lives (at least so long as their lives remain reasonably secure). Many profess "Christianity", at least in name. But of course, to know what a person really believes I simply have to look at how their priorities play out in their commitments - that is the real give-away. For the most part these "good" people's actions show a commitment to securing a comfortable and "happy" personal life. However, so long as Christians (dare I invoke "the church" ... perhaps not) play the game of "lets not offend anyone", so long as Christians continue to placate rather that perturb, these good people will continue with a sense of "I'm ok" before most likely drifting off into practical atheism. "So long as" ... that's a problematic phrase. For myself God is not an object to be picked up and set down, or exchanged for another that makes me feel comfortable. Likewise, God is not a "something". For me, God is the subject: "In him and through him I have my being". Further, while some say logic is religion's great predator, I find logic to be religion's great defender. The difference is whether I am using logic as a means toward moments of happiness, or will I use logic honestly to disclose the truths that lie before my eyes. Uncomfortable truths, disturbing and perturbing truths that end in Joy if I can only ever get over having moment by moment "happiness" as my goal. Truth is not abut happiness, truth is about a Joy that says "I can see clearly now". It is my contention that the path to prioritized personal happiness is logically and necessarily also a path to atheism. Conversely, a path to atheism is necessarily a path that must prioritize personal happiness. For I can only be happy when I am shielded from the truths of what I am in myself, and by not internalizing truths of the world around me. Personally, I'd rather choose to remove the blindfold and replace happiness with Joy. And if others proselytize to draw me into their church of blindfolded comfort, where they decry an objectified God, I'll say "Be logical for once in your life, do you really believe you've got your eyes open?" Death and What Comes Next A Discworld short story By Terry Pratchett Copyright © Terry Pratchett 2002 When Death met the philosopher, the philosopher said, rather excitedly: "At this point, you realise, I'm both dead and not dead." There was a sigh from Death. Oh dear, one of those, he thought. This is going to be about quantum again. He hated dealing with philosophers. They always tried to wriggle out of it. "You see," said the philosopher, while Death, motionless, watched the sands of his life drain through the hourglass, "everything is made of tiny particles, which have the strange property of being in many places at one time. But things made of tiny particles tend to stay in one place at one time, which does not seem right according to quantum theory. May I continue?" YES, BUT NOT INDEFINITELY, said Death, EVERYTHING IS TRANSIENT. He did not take his gaze away from the tumbling sand. "Well, then, if we agreed that there are an infinite number of universes, then the problem is solved! If there are an unlimited number of universes, this bed can be in millions of them, all at the same time!" DOES IT MOVE? "What? Death nodded at the bed. CAN YOU FEEL IT MOVING? he said. "No, because there are a million versions of me, too, And...here is the good bit ...in some of them I am not about to pass away! Anything is possible!" Death tapped the handle of his scythe as he considered this. AND YOUR POINT IS...? "Well, I'm not exactly dying, correct? You are no longer such a certainty." There was a sigh from Death. Space he thought. That was the trouble. It was never like this on worlds with everlastingly cloudy skies. But once humans saw all that space, their brains expanded to try and fill it up. "No answer, eh?" said the dying philosopher. "Feel a bit old-fashioned, do we?" THIS IS A CONUNDRUM CERTAINLY, said Death. Once they prayed, he thought. Mind you, he'd never been sure that prayer worked, either. He thought for a while. AND I SHALL ANSWER IT IN THIS MANNER, he added. YOU LOVE YOUR WIFE? "What?" THE LADY WHO HAS BEEN LOOKING AFTER YOU. YOU LOVE HER? "Yes. Of course." CAN YOU THINK OF ANY CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE, WITHOUT YOUR PERSONAL HISTORY CHANGING IN ANY WAY YOU WOULD AT THIS MOMENT PICK UP A KNIFE AND STAB HER? said Death. FOR EXAMPLE? "Certainly not!" BUT YOUR THEORY SAYS THAT YOU MUST. IT IS EASILY POSSIBLE WITHIN THE PHYSICAL LAWS OF THE UNIVERSE, AND THEREFORE MUST HAPPEN, AND HAPPEN MANY TIMES. EVERY MOMENT IS A BILLION, BILLION MOMENTS, AND IN THOSE MOMENTS ALL THINGS THAT ARE POSSIBLE ARE INEVITABLE. ALL TIME SOONER OR LATER, BOILS DOWN TO A MOMENT. "But of course we can make choices between-" ARE THERE CHOICES? EVERYTHING THAT CAN HAPPEN, MUST HAPPEN. YOUR THEORY SAYS THAT FOR EVERY UNIVERSE THAT'S FORMED TO ACCOMMODATE YOUR 'NO', THERE MUST BE ONE TO ACCOMMODATE YOUR 'YES'. BUT YOU SAID YOU WOULD NEVER COMMIT MURDER. THE FABRIC OF THE COSMOS TREMBLES BEFORE YOUR TERRIBLE CERTAINTY. YOUR MORALITY BECOMES A FORCE AS STRONG AS GRAVITY. And, thought Death, space certainly has a lot to answer for. "Was that sarcasm?" ACTUALLY, NO. I AM IMPRESSED AND INTRIGUED, said Death. THE CONCEPT YOU PUT BEFORE ME PROVES THE EXISTENCE OF TWO HITHERTO MYTHICAL PLACES. SOMEWHERE, THERE IS A WORLD WHERE EVERYONE MADE THE RIGHT CHOICE, THE MORAL CHOICE, THE CHOICE THAT MAXIMISED THE HAPPINESS OF THEIR FELLOW CREATURES, OF COURSE, THAT ALSO MEANS THAT SOMEWHERE ELSE IS THE SMOKING REMNANT OF THE WORLD WHERE THEY DID NOT ... "Oh, come on! I know what you're implying, and I've never believed in any of that Heaven and Hell nonsense!" The room was growing darker. The blue gleam along the edge of the reaper's scythe was becoming more obvious. ASTONISHING, said Death. REALLY ASTONISHING. LET ME PUT FORWARD ANOTHER SUGGESTION: THAT YOU ARE NOTHING MORE THAN A LUCKY SPECIES OF APE THAT IS TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE COMPLEXITIES OF CREATION VIA A LANGUAGE THAT EVOLVED IN ORDER TO TELL ONE ANOTHER WHERE THE RIPE FRUIT WAS? Fighting for breath, the philosopher managed to say: "Don't be silly." THE REMARK WAS NOT INTENDED AS DEROGATORY, said Death. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, YOU HAVE ACHIEVED A GREAT DEAL. "We've certainly escaped from outmoded superstitions!" WELL DONE, said Death. THAT'S THE SPIRIT. I JUST WANTED TO CHECK. He leaned forward. AND ARE YOU AWARE OF THE THEORY THAT THE STATE OF SOME TINY PARTICLES IS INDETERMINATE UNTIL THE MOMENT THEY ARE OBSERVED? A CAT IN A BOX IS OFTEN MENTIONED. "Oh, yes," said the philosopher. GOOD, said Death. He got to his feet as the last of the light died, and smiled. I SEE YOU... Recently I have been in many conversations with people who would like to live a re-invented Christianity - they want to take the virtues they like with a freedom to use as they will. I've alluded to this often, for example Living in an ethical wasteland. In doing this such people are no better than the New Atheists who also profess the virtues while keeping firm hold on their private vice.
There is no right way to do something wrong, but there are many wrong ways to do something right. This is what the modern world seeks to do; to take a virtue (e.g. love, imagination, pity) and hold onto this through the wrong means (e.g. many transient relationships, experimentation with drugs, or charitable conscience-massaging good works). As Chesterton wrote (see Mind Emotions) about our post-modern secularized world where vice roams freely: "... the virtues are let loose also; and the virtues wander more wildly, and the virtues do more terrible damage. The modern world is full of the old Christian virtues gone mad. The virtues have gone mad because they have been isolated from each other and are wandering alone." As a Christian I'm beginning to look at people's lives in a different light; it's not simply a matter of how do we separate vice from virtue, it's really about how to connect the virtue back to it's source - Jesus. The virtue is not the goal (but we make it so); the virtue is only the outworking of the goal - disconnected from its source the virtue will ultimately go bad, like a rotten and decayed fruit it becomes a vice. Whenever we take hold of a new thing we have to let go of another. So as we help people connect their virtues to Jesus the connections to vice will break; no condemnation is needed, no judgement is required, only the compassion of Jesus. Have you ever had mind emotions? Not those normal emotions like lust, desire, anger, excitement, or fear: such emotions come suddenly and disappear almost as fast, bypassing the brain and leaving only an after taste of something to file away as a detached memory, even if I should care to keep it - fleeting at best.
Most often my brain feels like a musty room, like its been shut up for a long long time. Gloomily closed up behind dusty drapes, filled with dark heavy furniture, cluttered by disorganized collections of random thoughts and walls lined by dusty shelves filled with forgotten memories. Its a close and claustrophobic space that I strive to escape from. Then something happens. Along comes someone who sweeps aside the curtains to reveal a morning sun that shows all the shabbiness of the room. They fling open the windows to let in a cool breeze that flows across the floor with a refreshing touch that displaces the stale air. This is a mind emotion, because my brain won't be the same again. I see old things anew, and feel new things as if I've always known; this sight will stay behind long after the feelings fade. Mind emotions take up residence; they spring clean the brain, rearrange the furniture (and give it a polish for good measure). Its hard to explain in one sentence - just as when you enter a new room its hard to describe in a few words. For with the curtains open the details are disclosed and each holds a story of understanding. It is amazing to me that until these experiences happen upon us, we can barely conceive of what they will be like, so content we are to die slowly in the suffocation of dark familiarity. My most recent mind emotion came squashed on a plane, reading Chesterton (again): "The modern world is not evil; in some ways the modern world is far too good. It is full of wild and wasted virtues. When a religious scheme is shattered (as Christianity was shattered at the Reformation), it is not merely the vices that are let loose. The vices are, indeed, let loose, and they wander and do damage. But the virtues are let loose also; and the virtues wander more wildly, and the virtues do more terrible damage. The modern world is full of the old Christian virtues gone mad. The virtues have gone mad because they have been isolated from each other and are wandering alone. Thus some scientists care for truth; and their truth is pitiless. Thus some humanitarians only care for pity; and their pity (I am sorry to say) is often untruthful." I'm now looking at modern life, the Godly and ungodly life, through a newly opened window. |
Why?
Probably the best therapy is to express yourself. Why do you think psychiatrists make you lie on the couch and talk, while all they do is murmur "hmmm", "uhuh", or "go on"? Archives
May 2017
|