Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Why I Am a Christian (Sort Of)

By Robert Jensen, AlterNet. Posted March 10, 2006.


My decision to join a church was more a political than a theological act.
031006_story
Why I Am a Christian (Sort Of)

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Robert Jensen

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

I don't believe in God.

I don't believe Jesus Christ was the son of a God that I don't believe in, nor do I believe Jesus rose from the dead to ascend to a heaven that I don't believe exists.

Given these positions, this year I did the only thing that seemed sensible: I formally joined a Christian church.

Standing before the congregation of St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church in Austin, Texas, I affirmed that I (1) endorsed the core principles in Christ's teaching; (2) intended to work to deepen my understanding and practice of the universal love at the heart of those principles; and (3) pledged to be a responsible member of the church and the larger community.

So, I'm a Christian, sort of. A secular Christian. A Christian atheist, perhaps. But, in a deep sense, I would argue, a real Christian.

A real Christian who doesn't believe in God? This claim requires some explanation about the reasons I joined, and also opens up a discussion of what the term "Christian" could, or should, mean.

First, whatever my beliefs about the nature of the non-material world or my views on spirituality, I live in a country that is extremely religious, especially compared to other technologically advanced industrial nations. Surveys show that about 80 percent of Americans identify as Christian and 5 percent as some other faith. And beyond self-identification, a 2002 poll showed that 67 percent of all people in the poll agreed that the United States is a "Christian nation"; 48 percent said they believed that the United States has "special protection from God"; 58 percent said that America's strength is based on religious faith; and 47 percent asserted that a belief in God is necessary to be moral.

While 84 percent in that 2002 poll agreed that one can be a "good American" without religious faith, clearly there's an advantage to being able to speak within a religious framework in the contemporary United States.

So, my decision to join a church was more a political than a theological act. As a political organizer interested in a variety of social-justice issues, I look for places to engage people in discussion. In a depoliticized society such as the United States -- where ordinary people in everyday spaces do not routinely talk about politics and underlying values -- churches are one of the few places where such engagement is possible. Even though many ministers and churchgoers shy away from making church a place for discussion of specific political issues, people there expect to engage fundamental questions about what it means to be human and the obligations we owe each other -- questions that are always at the core of politics.

The pastor and most of the congregation at St. Andrew's understand my reasons for joining, realizing that I didn't convert in a theological sense but joined a moral and political community. There's nothing special about me in this regard -- many St. Andrew's members I've talked to are seeking community and a place for spiritual, moral and political engagement. The church is expansive in defining faith; the degree to which members of the congregation believe in God and Christ in traditional terms varies widely. Many do, some don't, and a whole lot of folks seem to be searching. St. Andrew's offers a safe space and an exciting atmosphere for that search, in collaboration with others.

Such expansiveness raises questions about the definition of Christian. Many no doubt would reject the idea that such a church is truly Christian and would argue that a belief in the existence of God and the divinity of Christ are minimal requirements for claiming to be a person of Christian faith.

Such a claim implies that an interpretation of the Bible can be cordoned off as truth-beyond-challenge. But what if the Bible is more realistically read symbolically and not literally? What if that's the case even to the point of seeing Christ's claim to being the son of God as simply a way of conveying fundamental moral principles? What if the resurrection is metaphor? What if "God" is just the name we give to the mystery that is beyond our ability to comprehend through reason?

In such a conception of faith, an atheist can be a Christian. A Hindu can be a Christian. Anyone can be a Christian, and a Christian can find a connection to other perspectives and be part of other faiths. With such a conception of faith, a real ecumenical spirit and practice is possible. Identification with a religious tradition can become a way to lower barriers between people, not raise them ever higher.


Digg!

Robert Jensen is a journalism professor at the University of Texas at Austin, and the author of, most recently, The Heart of Whiteness: Confronting Race, Racism and White Privilege (City Lights Books).

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
wierdo
Posted by: Doubtom on Mar 10, 2006 12:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is your real motivation to be controversial? Do you find uniqueness in the title of Christian atheist, an obvious contradiction?

There is every opportunity to display and live by a decent code of behavior without the assistance of organized religion. I've been doing it for all of my life as have most of the atheists I've known.
In fact, all the atheists I've known are head and shoulders above all the religious people I've been exposed to.

I guess your claim cinches it,,,,this is indeed 1984! Up is really down and black is really white.

» RE: wierdo Posted by: fdr_vindicated
» RE: wierdo Posted by: Doubtom
» what's so obvious about it? Posted by: mrjones
» Courtney Love said it best Posted by: libertad
» RE: wierdo Posted by: KimmiJ
» RE: wierdo Posted by: VREmetal
» RE: wierdo Posted by: Mycos
Christian force for good
Posted by: Doubtom on Mar 10, 2006 12:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If there was ever any chance that the Christian religion or any other for that matter, could be a force for good, it should have been dispelled by its history a long time ago.

Peace will reign when the last priest is hung by the last lawyer.

» RE: Christian force for good Posted by: AlienSlave
» They make clear no such thing. Posted by: ABetterFuture
» Here's the problem, though Posted by: stormchilde1975
» Oh c'mon now. Nobody ever said... Posted by: ABetterFuture
» RE: Here's the problem, though Posted by: eringhorm
» Shell Game Posted by: noval
A Jesus Believing Pagan
Posted by: sisterbluerose on Mar 10, 2006 12:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My experience is quite the opposite. God/Jesus began speaking though me from the first time I attended silent meeting. I experience The diety as real an inner light if you will.
When I begain reading about feminist religion, it spoke to my contition. I begain to realize the culture was less kind for not having a female architype. And as a female raised by a divorced mother I didn't really relate to a male god, except he spoke to me.
So I begain to worship the Goddess and she spoke to me, too.
People asked me if now that I worshiped the Goddess did I no longer believe in God? I asked them if you give up old friends if you find new ones?
My children insisted on celebrating Christmas and Solstice. Holloween and Samhain.
Anyway if someone asks my religion I tell them that I am Pagan, though if we discuss it in depth, I might tell them that Jesus tells me I am a Christian.

Rationale
Posted by: peritonlogon on Mar 10, 2006 12:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This seems to me to be a giant rationale for jumping in the river. The fact that so many Americans believe in god, consider themselves religious, or are members of a church seems like a poor reason to become a member oneself. That might even be a contender for a reason to renounce one's membership. If a person wants 'moral engagement' there are coffe shops, community centers, an endless supply of options on the web and, if a person has a home, telephone and a will that person could have guests where such a thing could take place.

"The task of religion, paradoxically, is to bring into being a world based on the universal values that underlie most major theological and philosophical systems -- compassion, empathy, solidarity, dignity. Such a world would be truly based on love and real solidarity, a world in which we would take seriously the claim that all people have exactly the same value."

This is perhaps the most unempirical statement made in defense of religion, and it should be stricken from the record. It's not just our author who has made this statement, and it's right up there with 'there are no atheists in a foxhole' as wrong and, to many, offensive things that are said either in deffense of religion or in persecution of its opposite.

The fact of the matter is that 'free intelligence' and 'hope for the future, not looking back all the time toward a past that is dead' are the antithesis of Christianity and Religion in general. No supporting argument needed on that point. And, as far as the rest of the rationale, there is a church that the author could have joined that would have fit perfectly to his purposes, it's called the Unitarian Universalist Church. Its a place where one does not have to ascribe to any creed. Maybe there aren't any branches of it in Texas. This particular organization has had trouble keeping and adding members lately because what people seem to want in a church these days is that it orders their life and thoughts more, rather than less, that is, people want churches that restrict their intelligence more and look further backward.

» RE: ationale Posted by: rolandel
» What are you trying to say? Posted by: peritonlogon
» RE: ationale Posted by: Mycos
The Jesus I know...
Posted by: adp3d on Mar 10, 2006 12:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...that me that I should have compassion for the less fortunate. He taught me that I should respect people of faith different than mine. He taught me that the place of worship should not be used as a place for personal gain. I believe that when Christ arrives yet again( and He will), He will arrive as a person that will require a great amount of compassion, and that those so called "Christians" that would look upon His person with contempt, with hate, with fear and loathing will have to pay some price for their falseness.

» RE: The Jesus I know... Posted by: klondike_yukon
» RE: The Jesus I know... Posted by: adp3d
» RE: The Jesus I know... Posted by: aviendha36
» RE: The Jesus I know... Posted by: Rev Ed
taking for granted?
Posted by: tranzidanz on Mar 10, 2006 1:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you write an essay and you quote from another author it is a matter of integrity to quote your source.
Are we, - humanitarians and all-, taking our humanitarian consciousness for granted? - have we really developed our values out of our own selves? - If so, then those values ought to be found in all societies, especially in the older ones and I don't believe that this is the case.
Perhaps we are not doing justice to those great teachers of humanity, Moses, Zoroaster, Jesus, Buddha, Krisna, Mohammed, the Bab and Baha'u'llah, and perhaps others we don't know of anymore, who have through their extraordinary power infused new content into the human collective consciousness, very much like an installation of a new software. Neither the fact that people chose to abuse the power that comes with the moral highground nor the fact that humanity as a whole has not yet integrated the essence of the teachings and doesn't yet live by them is proof for the non-existence of the Original Teacher.
We cannot conclusively answer the question of whether God is or not. Per definition our mind would be incapable of such an evaluation. What is left is the testimony of those who claim to have spoken on His behalf and were invested with His Authority, namely the above-mentioned small band of extraordinary religious founders. And they all proclaim the existence of God.
Looking at history we can discern that each one of those teachers changed single-handedly human history, human culture, human thought and values on a very large scale. Their influence, as we all know, far outlived their earthly existences. Each one of them dwarfs any other movement or fashionable philosophy and if we propose to see them not in isolation or contradiction, but together and in spiritual harmony with each other, - coming from the same source and propagating the same purpose, - then we arrive at an overwhelming evidence of what could be termed God's educational program for humanity. -

And, no, we haven't graduated yet.

» RE: taking for granted? Posted by: Samantha Vimes
» Reality vs. history Posted by: rancespergl
» RE: taking for granted? Posted by: London
Christian Atheist? Are you sure?
Posted by: BlackMan on Mar 10, 2006 1:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Atheism is disbelief in the existence of God. Christianity is a belief that God exist. One can not be both. Is it me or is this confusion?

May I share some insight on the subject of defining Christianity. The first value is that one must believe the bible is the sole authority of Christianity, because any other book will confuse its authority. Secondly one must believe in the power of God, the Holy Spirit, and that Jesus was born; and lived as the Bible reads. Now after this basic understanding is accepted the steps to becoming a Christian begins.

Once the bible is accepted as its own authority divinely inspired by God through man, a person becoming a Christian can not accept any man made set of rules to define Christianity once the bible becomes the sole source of instructions on this journey. One must utilize intellect to understand this new knowledge from scripture. One must examine each point in context, content, and answer each step to Christianity with the bible scriptures as the sole set of instructions for salvation. Now what should you do next?

If you examine the scripture from Genesis to Revelations and read it word for word one is unable to understand how to become a Christian and put it all into perspective. The bible if full of clues and does not read like a novel. One must have another who understands it's context and content to teach you how to define, become, live, and die a Christian.

The definition of Christian is "belonging to Christ." The root word in Christian is Christ. In the bible the Apostles were chosen to teach what Christ taught them to the world and write the bible for us to follow as the map to everlasting peace, harmony, love, understanding, joy, oppulence, and humility. These first twelve Apostles were first called Christians in Antioch according to scripture because, they belonged to Christ as his chosen teachers. Those twelve teachers were able to spread Christ's teachings everywhere they fled as the Roman Empire and the sect of Jewish sectarian leaders prosecuted them to the death.

Carefully examined you will find that they taught, and today the same is taught, how to become a Christian in five steps. The first step is to "hear". If one is unable to hear but able to read, or unable to read but able to hear, one is able to understand the knowledge shared by the teacher. Secondly once knowledge is entered into the mind, one is required to believe the scripture's instructions and the examples taught by the Apostles in A.D. 33 in the Bible. The third step is to repent of all wrongdoing from the past. End all wrongdoing is a change in the direction one took before being convinced they are in error. The fourth step is to Confess that Jesus Christ is the son of God, and that Jesus died for the remission of man's sin before his ascension into the heavens, for his rightful place on the right hand of God. The fifth step is to go down into the water grave of baptism for the remission of one's own personal sins and once the individual arise, Christ adds the individual into the body of Christ; into the Church of Christ, the only Church written into the bible, the only Church Christ created, the only Church where one can be saved.

Using intellect alone is not sufficient. One must be taught. However reasong is important while taking the journey to Christianity. One important question is, "When did the Presbyterian Church begin?" Well is certainly did not exist in A.D. 33. Who was the Presbyterian Church creator? It was a man who started the Presbyterian Church. Intellect will tell a reasonable person that if any church did not exist in A.D. 33 and was found by someone other than Jesus's Apostles in A.D. 33; must be from man not Christ. If any church was created by man it is anti-Christ, or, not from Christ; as un-Christian.

You found a denominational church that teaches man-made doctrine only.

Christ was no Christian
Posted by: eileenflmng on Mar 10, 2006 1:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
He never quit being a Palestinian Jew.

100 years before Christ walked the earth, Rabbi Hillel,
understood that the Hebrew understanding of Hokema; Holy Wisdom

was the same as the Greek understanding of The Logos: The Word.


It was Paul and John who first understood The Logos: The Word is The Christ

So, before Christ walked the earth a man,

He was already a She: Hokema, Holy Wisdom; the Feminine Divinity

isn't that good news?

Here's some more:

Matthew 12:31-32, Mark 3:28-29, and Luke 12:10

are simpatico with 'heretical' Thomas saying 44:

'Jesus said: "Whoever blasphemes against the father will be forgiven, whoever blasphemes against the son will be forgiven, but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven either on earth or in heaven."


What Christ is saying is:
God is already within

Message brought to you by:
A Celtic Christian of The Beatitudes, agitator of church and state, activist, poet, author historical fiction and reporter for the WAWA Blog:
http://www.wearewideawake.org

» RE: Christ was no Christian Posted by: Prophit
why i`m a deist
Posted by: bobdotj on Mar 10, 2006 3:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
i don`t believe in miracles,mysteries,and prophecies.i`m a libertarian,theres only 1 god,he left the rest of this to us and we have fucked it up.

Christian Atheist
Posted by: patti_s on Mar 10, 2006 3:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You are right Christ was not a Christian. He was the beginning of Christianity and the Church with all its many denominations. But the stupidest thing I have ever heard is the claim to be a Christian atheist.

You may appreciate the moral teachings of any faith but without the belief of the true core principal of a faith, i.e. that Christ was the son of God and that God is the true creator of everything, you may be as moral as you like, vow to follow all the teachings you like and that does not make you a Christian.

What it does make you is either a very confused person or a moral coward without the personal integrity to practice your true belief without the legitimization of a church. A Christian believes that Christ was the Son of God before he or she can claim to be Christian. I can only hope that if you do attend your new church regularly, you will maybe get the message.

Don't you think you would have been better off starting your own group for "Good and Moral People Who Like Christ's Teachings But Don't Believe in Christ"? Patti_s

» RE: Christian Atheist Posted by: taxidave
» RE: Christian Atheist Posted by: cmur
» RE: Christian Atheist Posted by: Doubtom
» RE: Christian Atheist Posted by: patti_s
» RE: Christian Atheist Posted by: mim
» Good for taxidave... Posted by: HeidiLockwood
» Was "the buddha" a buddhist? Posted by: LeonDion
» Well, yeah. Posted by: stormchilde1975
» RE: Well, yeah. Posted by: LeonDion
» RE: Christian Atheist Posted by: brenda123
Jesus is the face of religion
Posted by: reason on Mar 10, 2006 3:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Our preacher used to say "The reason God gave us bodies is so we can tell one soul from the other. Maybe Jesus is the "face" of religion for us and the other countries have their own "face" for their religion, be it Buddha or whomever.

Some think that the more a person is tempted by the devil, the stricter religion they will choose. It is similar to the man who sows wild oats being very strict with his daughters.

Some psychologists believe that your attitude toward God will be the same attitude you have toward your father. If you had a loving father you will believe in a loving God and visa versa. Other life experiences weigh in on that, but I have found it to be basically right.

The Jerry Farwell fundamentalists go by the old testament. “An eye for an eye”. The more evolved a religion is, the more they seem to lean toward the teachings of Christ instead of the old laws of the old testament. “What you have done to the least among you, you have also done it to me.” “Turn the other cheek”.

There is a controversy about all of the Bible, even how many Commandments there really are.

Think about this. Suppose a Father left his ten children somewhere with a list of ten things they should and shouldn’t do and he came back 30 years later to see how they did. Say some misunderstood some of the things he meant, but did their best to do what he wanted. Say another understood what he was supposed to do, but didn’t do it. Say one relied on a leader to tell him what he was supposed to do and the leader was wrong. Say one was tempted and rationalized that his father didn’t mean to say what he said. How would God judge these people? I hope he would cast out the one who followed the wrong leader instead of thinking for himself and cast out the one who understood, but ignored what he was supposed to do and the one who decided his father didn‘t mean what he said. (But we aren’t suppose to judge.)

The devil and his temptations are beautiful. That is how he gets his claws in. No one would be tempted by ugliness, or if they could see the end results of following the devil and his evil ways. (That is my Pentecostal and Baptist way of talking.) Most pain and suffering in the world is caused by breaking the commandments. Adultery causes murder. Stealing imprisons the thief and takes away from those who have worked. It is a vexation of the spirit of the good people. Lies cause Wars. The list is endless.

It starts out you just want to do well in the world for your family. Then you start wanting more and more. Then you rationalize, you will just do this until you get that. Greed and avarice happens. That is when the Devil wins.

To be a true Chrisian you should live a simple life and lay up treasures in Heaven by tending the sick, feeding the poor and visiting those in prison.

It is easy for me to believe in religion, because I almost died and had an out of body experience. I had a lot of doubts and was mad at God when it happened. Trust me, spirituality and goodness are real. There really are Angels. If they are real, then the Devil and evil must be real too.

I don't go to church very often, but there is a feeling in Church that is no where else. You can feel the presence of GOOD and God in the air. Maybe being in a church will work a miracle for the author.

Is this athesim?
Posted by: Colin on Mar 10, 2006 3:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I’ve read Professor Jensen’s work on Alternet here before (the one about Thanksgiving springs immediately to mind) and quite liked his work then. His thinking was clear, if controversial. This time, however, I don’t think much of his ideas.

I myself am an atheist and often find myself thinking that one of the problems we currently have is precisely the mish-mash of messages that Prof. Jensen seems to be advocating. He says, ‘But what if the Bible is more realistically read symbolically and not literally? What if that's the case even to the point of seeing Christ's claim to being the son of ‘God’ as simply a way of conveying fundamental moral principles?’ It is this bit I don’t like.

As I see it, things change when you abandon religion. The ‘templates for life’, previously provided by religion don’t apply in the same way as before – the moral goalposts do move. For example, take drugs. Drugs are, as we all know, currently illegal for many reasons, one of which, is the fact that it contradicts standard religious teachings (in most religions, though not all). Moreover, religion gives one person the moral authority to interfere in another persons life. After all, if your ultimate judge is not other people but rather ‘God’, then surely your primary goal should be to please ‘God’ rather than another person? More to the point, if the other person is doing something that specifically conflicts with the message of ‘God’, then surely you +must+ interfere otherwise you are living in sin yourself?

Then there’s the atheist view. Generally built on a backbone of Darwinism, you find yourself asking – ‘What right do I have to interfere in another persons life? Where do I get the authority from?’ Traditionally, the authority comes from such institutions as tradition (backed up by a majority held monopoly on violence) and morally justified, as I said above, by this religious authority of interference. But as an atheist you are left with nothing but logic and reason to decide these arguments. Previously held norms are no longer. You may think this is balony, but look for yourself at society. Look at the patterns of drug takers and non-drug takers - who thinks it's right, who thinks it's a moral wrong - crucially, who doesn't think it's an issue. Of course, that’s just scratching the surface of this huge topic.

Personally, when I watch religious people talking, I can’t help but find my stomach turning at the ideas they spout and the lines they draw in defining the limits of actions. So, for Prof. Jensen to claim he’s an atheist but still goes to church I find very strange. Personally, I would say he, like most ‘atheists’, isn’t really an atheist in the most important way. In the same way that, *as far as other people are concerned*, your belief in God isn’t the most important part of a religion – it’s what you do with it that counts (after all, what does it matter to them what goes on inside your head). So it is also the case with atheism. It doesn’t matter if you don’t believe in God unless you really think about what that means to you and your relationship with everyone else. If you really thought about that, I don't think you would find it easy to sit a church and not feel like you've entered another, very alien, world.

If you felt the need to go to church as a political act
Posted by: Lizmv on Mar 10, 2006 4:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why choose a church that continues to be anti-gay? Why not go to a Unitarian Universalist church? Or find the Quakers? Or try a pagan coven?

Now that you're a "Christian"...
Posted by: kablooie on Mar 10, 2006 4:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...Would you kindly do us all a favor and use your intellectual and journalistic skills to de-bunk the Book of Revelations? A worthy cause, that.

"Holier than Thou" Christians
Posted by: reason on Mar 10, 2006 4:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To me a good Christian doesn't interfere with others. It is their life and their tests, not ours to interfere in without being asked.

I know the type of Christian you are talking about. They use religion like a club to beat others over the head with and they have a "holier than thou" attitude. There is no love in their hearts and nothing a Christian does without love is sacred. Giving without love in your heart will not get you into Heaven no matter how many works you do. Unloving Christians are stumbling blocks.

The only thing I have heard or read in the Bible about drugs is that your body is your temple and you should keep it holy. Before drugs, it was cigarettes, liquor and even coffee and tea that were taboo and still are, I suppose.

The Bible speaks of "moderation". "A little wine for thy health's sake" (or something like that). But, that is another way for the devil to get his claws in a person. One drink won't hurt you, it will taste good and make you feel good. But then as time goes by for some, it takes more and more to feel good. One cigarette won't hurt you, but the addiction will come fast and you will smoke more and more to feed it.

Drugs are harmless at first until you get into the hard stuff and you will need it more and more. First you lose your job because of it, then your family and your home. Then when you get to that point you will sell your body and your soul. You will even kill for it. It is the devil incarnate.

I don't know about marijuana, but I wouldn't touch any of it. I already am fighting a cigarette addiction so I can relate to how hard it is to quell an addiction and how it would be better to never start.

Remember the young man who killed a young boy in the bathroom because he was doing it for the devil? He had taken drugs and had experiences with the devil and was convinced that he was doing the right thing. After months in jail, he asked the jury to kill him. He said "If I get out I will do it again." He was Satan's spawn created by drugs.

Just join anything
Posted by: Moonray on Mar 10, 2006 4:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is the goofiest thing I ever heard of.

Considering the bloody and oppressive history of religion -- especially the Christian religion -- anyone who joins a church for the reasons you stated has to be an air-head.

Apparently you can't exist without companionship. Try the Rotarians. Or get a dog.

Are you truly an athiest?
Posted by: SufiLizard on Mar 10, 2006 5:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you're truly an athiest, I have a little bit of a problem with your joining a Christian church. I am not an athiest, and yet I think I probably share about 99 percent of your views on Christianity.

I don't believe that Jesus was the "One True Son of God." Personally I think the reference to the "son of God," is in the same sense that we are all children of God. Jesus just was a lot more in tune that most people.

I don't believe that he literally rose from the dead. I think most of the Bible should be interpreted metaphorically and I abhor literalism among modern Christians.

However, I do believe there is a God, or a Force or some kind of metaphysical entity that helps push the arc of the universe toward good (even if that nudge is slow and almost imperceptible at times.)

Therefore I DO consider myself a Christian because I follow the exaple of Christ as best as I understand it. But if you truly ARE a secular humanist (you're in good company with great men like Kurt Vonnegut) I find it a little disingenuous to actually join a Christian congregation.

On the other hand, I think your motivation of trying to steer Christianity toward a more relevant and I would argue "ethical" position on modern issues is exactly what the religion needs right now and I'm working toward a same goal.

And who knows, just as you have a positive impact on your congregation, they may just reciprocate and give you a little something in return. Perhaps you will accidentally get a glimpse of the divine yourself, even if it doesn't turn out to be some ghostly, yet wildly emotional, bearded old man sitting on a cloud as many people's juvenile understanding of divinity would have them believe.

Michael Ignatowski
Posted by: mikeig on Mar 10, 2006 5:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's interesting to read the many criticisms of Robert Jenson coming from BOTH the traditional Christians and the non-religious atheists. I can personally relate to what he did though. Although I consider myself a humanist, I had very similar motivations for joining a progressive Unitarian Universalists congregation in our area several years ago. I think Robert Jenson's actions are part of a growing trend in our society, a response to what is some people refer to as "a spiritual crisis" - a desire to become part of a supportive moral community based more on reason and compassion than on theological doctrine.

Joining such a community is also a good way to support the progressive side of the moral and political debates taking place in this country. In fact, I would encourage Robert Jenson and others with a similar mind to look into the recently formed "Network for Spiritual Progressives" founded by Michael Lerner (http://www.spiritualprogressives.org/) if you're interested in a national organization of like minded people.

To be honest, I understand where he's coming from
Posted by: Arianna on Mar 10, 2006 5:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As an Agnostic-leaning-towards-Paganism, I joined the youth group from a liberal Anglican church when I was young because I was looking for a space for discussion of things generally not brought up in the lunchroom (and I was from a pretty opressive Catholic family, so discussion was *definitely* not going on there). They were really open and accepting, the group pretty much never actually went to church, we'd debate issues (this was back at the start of the Anglican Church tearing itself apart over gay rights... this church was a gay-positive church), discuss the bible and other religious texts, and they'd have me present the topic from a non-christian standpoint. Through all of our participation (and great adult leaders), it morphed from being a group parents were sending their kids to in hopes of getting them to "believe" to a great discussion and debate group, and some of the most meaningful discussions and debates I've ever had were with them.

It really all depends what group you chose though. To be honest, I've always found Presbyterians a little scary :P

For Shame
Posted by: Timberbee on Mar 10, 2006 5:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You are not a Christian, no matter how you cut it. Your opening statement says as much. You affirm your lack of belief in God, then attest to swearing the opposite. A belief in God, and Christ, is Required to be a Christian. Not a moral stance, and not a political one.

You "Joined" a Church, to write an article, to wear a label, to USE the congregation. This only makes you akin to Pat Robertson, or, anyone else who does such things, it does Not make you a Christian. You rationalize Your choice, trivilize the choices of others by singing out that the Pastor of your Church "Uncerstood" your reasoning. I would argue that it isn't His place to bar your path. You have Sworn an Oath, stated your beliefs. Are they to know you a scheming liar from the get-go? Or are they to hold out hope that, what you say is, ultimately, what is within you, or, at least, what you may yet strive for.

It is a calamity, to seek to change others, yet, we always try. For naught. We are what we are. Cannot be remade, other than by our selves. Religous experience can be at the heart of that, whatever it's nature. Most people will Never experience this. Yet, A great many of us will still seek God, Communion with... Something, outside of ourselves, within, ourselves.

Your quest to enter a congregation and Use them for political gain graces you not at all.

» RE: For Shame Posted by: deeannef
Superfluous?
Posted by: bettsoff on Mar 10, 2006 5:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you don't need to believe in god in call yourself a Christian, you don't need to call yourself a Christian to learn about morality and compassion and whatever else the author hoped to find in church.

a modest proposal
Posted by: Spot on Mar 10, 2006 5:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
is there is a difference between religion and philosophy? both are ways of interrogating the world around us, and both are fundamental to the way we interpret and formulate the answers to our questions. as alluded to in the article, the difference between the writer's political philosophy and that of the presbytrerian church he attends is nominal; that is, only contained in names. If we all choose to look at character as demonstrated in actions instead of what people call themselves or appear to be, we will have taken a large step toward equality. whose business is it to tell him he is wrong for equating the name of god with the unexplainable mystery that each of us experiences? or perhaps you know something the rest of us don't?

» RE: a modest proposal Posted by: Robba29
Let's look at Dr. Jensen's employment situation
Posted by: sausage on Mar 10, 2006 5:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
He is currently employed as a journalism professor at the Univeristy of Texas, Austin. We know this from the thumbnail bio provided above.

Now while Austin, the state capital, is known as the most "liberal" city in the state, it was once the home base of American Atheists' founder Madalyne Murray O'Hair, it is still Texas. As a Texas city in the postmodern Twenty-first Century it too must be influenced by the tides of irrational monotheistic fundamentalist religion inundating the shores of our common world-wide post-Enlightenment civilization.

I, too, am an atheist. I, too, as I was raised in a traditional Methodist household, am influenced by the teachings of Jesus. And I, too, feel that those teachings have profound universal significance and relevance. However, unlike Dr. Jensen I do not have to worry about employment.

In the past Jensen has taken many controversial positions, to conservatives at least, especially on the occupation of Iraq. I am sure his position at UT-Austin is under constant scrutiny by the forces of reaction both within the univserity setting and without. So while I'm sure his motives for joining the Presbyterian church are sincere, I am likewise sure he foresees a time, in the not to distant future, when church membership becomes a requisite for continued employment at UT-Austin.

Doris
Posted by: Doris Wallace on Mar 10, 2006 6:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is this what is termed "fire insurance"?

» RE: Doris Posted by: yesman
Divine Comedy?
Posted by: douglashoyt on Mar 10, 2006 6:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The tension between reality and ridiculous is apparent.

BANANA IN THE EAR
Posted by: charlieparisek on Mar 10, 2006 6:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One can only speculate on Mr Jensen's motive for claiming to be a Christian atheist. I suspect it is a manifestation of the banana-in-the-ear syndrome displayed by the crappy artist demanding attention. "Let's do something provocative'', he thinks, but only ends up looking like an asshole at the exhibition.

Mr Jensen's logic for becoming a 'Christian', though, is specious and his reason duplicitous no matter how he rationalizes it.

He wants to engage people in political discussion but believes America to be "a depoliticized society...where ordinary people in everyday spaces do not routinely talk about politics and underlying values." Apparently America is not hearing him and this is likely because he is not a Christian. After all, 80% of America is Christian and Christians mostly listen only to other Christians (or so Mr Jensen implies). Hmmm. He then hits on the brilliant idea of joining a church in the hope of gaining a larger audience. Meaningful discussion at last!

What a snapper-head.

In the first place, the extent of polarization found in America today is proof of exactly the opposite of a depoliticized society. Not only do people openly talk about politics and affirm individual beliefs, they also wear these beliefs on their shoulders, plaster them on their cars, wrap them around trees, use them as the basis for lawsuits (our great American pastime!) and occasionally stick them right in your face. It's pretty easy to get into a political discussion in America. Whether or not it will be 'meaningful' may depend on your social circle.

Secondly, what precisely is the advantage of being able to "speak within a religious framework"? To preach to the choir? Or are you really saying that your own arguments aren't sound enough to be taken seriously by the majority of Americans (i.e. Christians) so you have to fake it in order to have an audience?

Lastly, if Christians really only listen to other Christians, do you suppose they are so stupid that your arguments will begin to carry weight having now been cloaked in your veil of false faith? Perhaps even Christians can be capable of intelligent thought.

Some of my best friends are Christians. I doubt if they would buy your reasoning or your faith for a nickel.

I-It, I-Thou
Posted by: wildeyes on Mar 10, 2006 6:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I worry that this move was made not as an honest spiritual search, but as a political move intended to use the church to incite political discussions. Do not get me wrong, I am all for a church engaging in discussions of social justice, as, being a Christian myself, I feel that churches shy away from their responsibility to prophetic witness (ie calling out the wrongs of a society, like with war) or to actions that reflect that understanding of the gospel.

Now I have views opposite of Mr. Jensen, for I would affirm the existence of God (mind you not necessarily as any construction or description... and not necessarily uniquely other, out there and whatnot) and the resurrection of Christ. But I also realize that in my relationship with the church, I can view the church as a means to getting down to politics and heavy moral questions concerning things like war and the death penalty. But this objectifies my relationship with the church -- the church, despite my "insider" status, becomes an object, that is something to be used. On the other hand, I can view the church as it has been thought of for quite some time -- a place where spiritual transformation can occur, where I and others have something to bring, and I may be changed. In this kind of relationship, I become vulnerable, for the church may change me just as much as I change the church. This seems to be the best and most honest kind of relationship with the church.

So, on the one hand, I thank Robert Jensen for this article for it has elicited thought about my own relationship with the church, but, on the other hand, I also hope that he is able to engage his congregation in a more honest and open manner, and not merely as a tool for politics.

otto
Posted by: otto on Mar 10, 2006 6:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I pretty well believe in all the doctrines that you reject there, but I'm still with you. I'm more at home with people who are willing to work and sacrifice for a better world than with "Christians" who go to Church, pray, and work for a better bank account. Churches and theologians have disputed for some time whether there can be "an anonymous Christian", but to me you sound close to that. (By the way, I live in Canada but lived and worked as a priest for 6 years in Texas (Houston) for a lot of the causes you espouse.

Good Political Move
Posted by: gikady on Mar 10, 2006 6:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I consider your move to be prudent but your advertising it to lack wisdom. You need to speak their language, quote their sayings, and live at least an outward show of what they preach. Become one of them and be the best at what they do and say.
And then, slowly, and with great care begin to corrupt their young. Give to the few within their ranks, the ones who have doubts, the ones that have the ability to see beyond the rhetoric, and the sayings and 'beliefs', a better and deeper meaning to their perplexity.
Have them read The Good Book, know it inside and out. And then, show them the other good books.
Best of luck.

» RE: Good Political Move Posted by: twerquie
» RE: Good Political Move Posted by: GreenLibbie
» RE: Good Political Move Posted by: brenda123
You can take your bible
Posted by: Patrissimo on Mar 10, 2006 7:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You can take your bible,koran, torah,and every other religious pieces of twisted garbage,shove it,and martyr yourself.Just show your humble dramatics by not forcing
it on innocent people or those of us who believe in the
sacredness of privacy,freedom from religious exploitation,
and the ambiguous,hypocrisy of spewing religious babble
while practicing socio-economic Darwinism and sacrificing humans for your self-righteuosness.

I quit reading
Posted by: katrivers64 on Mar 10, 2006 7:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
. . . when the author wrote "a 2002" poll without naming the poll. I thought the article was kind of interesting up to that point. I hate writing like that. If you were in my research writing class, you, author would get an automatic "F" for not naming sources. Also, Alternet, I've been noticing this more and more lately in your articles. Just say no. We libs are open-minded, not stupid sheep.

» RE: I quit reading Posted by: RobertJensen
olliesmom
Posted by: olliesmom on Mar 10, 2006 7:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why are you wasting valuable time and energy on this non-sense? There are fewer real Christians in churches than diamonds in duck ponds and - if you really wanted a socio-politic religion, you should have joined the Methodists.

» RE: olliesmom Posted by: patti_s
Agnostic Religion
Posted by: Dave Belden on Mar 10, 2006 7:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Even the religion of believers includes many aspects that are logically independent of belief: from communal singing to visiting the sick. The normal definitions of religion, at least in the West, which are held by both believers and atheists, hold that belief in the supernatural is central. But what if we create religions that are God-optional or agnostic? Then we can get all the good parts without the authoritarian, intellectually indefensible bad parts. The UUs are certainly offering that option today. If more people like Jensen redefine Christianity as he does, that can also offer a great deal to our society. I gave a sermon called Agnostic Religion last Fall that people might find interesting on this topic: here and another arguing that religion is really about how we behave, not what we believe, here.

» RE: Agnostic Religion Posted by: Dave Belden
Burned at the stake...
Posted by: kelly.nickell on Mar 10, 2006 7:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Do to my invigorating life as a gadfly, many a church in my past usually finds a way to set me outside the door, kind of like Dino in the Flintstones.

While some whistle past the graveyard, I whistle past the church.

I realize that the ethics of my own life have little sway in discourse with a thundering pulpit, and the need by the followers to save me at any cost.

I have been trying to have rational conversations with conservative christians for the majority of my life. I went through RCIA and was baptized in the catholic church. Lucky goddamn me, my future wife didn't come to one meeting in that process; should have seen that as a sign. I could have saved myself. Oh well.

I watched PTL (Pass The Loot, as it is fondly known in West Texas by heretics such as me).

The one thing I discovered is that if there is a heaven with them perally gates, populated with smiling stepford moonies, I think I will tie myself to the stake, and allow whoever wants to light the son of a bitch to do so.

I know the line will be long to light it, but I intend to sell tickets to this final act of heresy, and donate the proceeds to Kingsford, where perhaps the ashes of my godless soul will provide enough heat to cook another soul in this continued regression into stupidity, self righteousness, insanity, and any number of other things we use to absolve ourselves of the responsibility for the little voice inside of our head that is not god, but our own, telling us to do the right things, because hey, somebody taught us to do the right things, such as parents, guides, hell, other good people that deserve as much fucking credit for creating good people as a God that can be blamed or embraced for bringing me George Walker Bush. If god likes jokes, he/she/it has to be aspirating some Kool-Aid now.

W is one reason to believe in God, or spit in his face in my case.

Light my fucking stake, I aint ready.

Excuse me for having a bad day, God told me to get outside and cut down a few trees that are swaying in the wind over my house, because hurricane season is on its way and good people take care of their trees, especially when the insurance has just gone up and the bastards will fall right onto my bedroom as I pray for another good season of storms, and that my pathetic little life will be spared for yet another year.

Billy Joel was right, only the good die young; me on the other hand will probably have to spend the next hundred damn years listening to the christians so in need of my soul.

Does anyone really think the well of souls needs mine?

» RE: Burned at the stake... Posted by: reason
» RE: Burned at the stake... Posted by: Doubtom
» RE: Burned at the stake... Posted by: reason
» RE: Burned at the stake... Posted by: Doubtom
» RE: Burned at the stake... Posted by: reason
» RE: Burned at the stake... Posted by: kelly.nickell
» RE: Burned at the stake... Posted by: reason
» RE: Burned at the stake... Posted by: kelly.nickell
» RE: Burned at the stake... Posted by: kelly.nickell
» RE: Burned at the stake... Posted by: reason
» RE: Burned at the stake... Posted by: kelly.nickell
» RE: Burned at the stake... Posted by: Doubtom
» RE: Burned at the stake... Posted by: reason
» RE: Burned at the stake... Posted by: kelly.nickell
» RE: Burned at the stake... Posted by: reason
» RE: Burned at the stake... Posted by: kelly.nickell
» RE: Great post Posted by: ccbite
truth, god, jesus, what have you; lies outside thought, opinions, philosophy....
Posted by: patrick wey on Mar 10, 2006 7:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is all a waste of time and energy. This is all just playing with words. There is no meaning to any of this.........jesus, budha and the rest of them remembered and forgotten would just walk by these conversations. Act from inside, we don't need any religion, god cannot be comprehended with words, thoughts - go and get a glass of water for that kid dying of thirst across a continent or two..........

You know, you CAN be a lefty and a Christian.
Posted by: medstudgeek on Mar 10, 2006 7:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not incompatible. There was a big religious left until the 60s. Jesus spent most of his time providing free healthcare to the poor through healing miracles, after