What do you want it to mean?
A friend gave me a copy of an essay by Robert Jensen titled "Why I Am a Christian (sort of)" which was published in the Houston Chronicle on March 13, 2006. Jensen is an associate professor in the School of Journalism at the University of Texas at Austin, and a look at his web page and bio give me a sense of his ideology.
Professor Jensen does a succinct job defining the motivations of a modern day secular humanist, although he avoids this label. Instead he has done something which is pervasive in modern thought: he stretches the definition of Christian until the word fits his own ideology. This sleight of hand is like removing the golden egg machine from the goose. The secular humanist wishes to retain the blessing of God while denying the existence of God, and although secular humanists may subscribe to Christian ethics, they deny the source and justification for the ethic. Jensen takes it a step further by "joining" a Christian church; this is an interesting move since in most Christian churches one must make a public statement of faith in Jesus Christ. This might be encouraging since God does indeed work in mysterious ways and [the Holy] Spirit intercedes with sighs too deep for words (Romans 8:26). Robert, are you listening?
Jensen takes aim at Christian theology or any theology which excludes unbelievers. In Jensen's big tent, the only creed which matters is to love your neighbor as yourself. Jesus placed this commandment on an equal footing with the other commandment which Jensen rejects; that is, to love God with all your heart, soul, strength and mind. Taken out of context, we might say that Jensen loves God because he loves others, but Jesus makes it very clear that if we reject God's Son, then we reject God. Nevertheless, Jensen's philosophy is appealing, especially to the modern agnostic or atheist, and it defines a new religion for the modern age, a radical ecumenism which no longer needs God. This religion can be taken as the intersection of all major world religions; that which those religions have in common remains, and that which contradicts is excluded. In short, the modern secular humanist builds a moral foundation on consensus alone. Indeed, consensus has replaced objective morality as the highest good in the modern world.
So the Bible is symbol, the resurrection of Jesus Christ is a metaphor, and God is just a pair of parentheses which we wrap around everything we can't understand. Jensen's dream sounds very much like John Lennon's "Imagine", and we could have universal peace if the major religions of the world would stop trying to convert and seek the common ground of universal love and compassion.
I wonder if Professor Jensen has ever tried to convert anyone to his ideology. Probably not, after all, most rational and compassionate people would naturally agree with him. Who cares if a few people in the world believe that Jesus Christ lived, died and rose from the dead. Big deal if a radical minority belief in eternal life through Christ, and take quite literally Jesus words that no one can receive eternal life without accepting Him.
And what is the consensus?
The consensus defines morality in modern civilization, doesn't it? The consensus in Nazi Germany believed that Jews were less than human and should be exterminated. The consensus in the Soviet Union under Stalin believed that private ownership of property was the ultimate evil. The consensus in the antebellum South believed that blacks were property and also not quite human. Very reasonable and otherwise moral people participated in the systematic oppression or genocide of those who were excluded from the consensus. Is it the consensus today that those systems were wrong, and if so, on what basis? Consensus? Common sense? A feeling? The golden rule?
Robert Jensen says that he is a Christian on the basis of adopting a moral system, but denies the Creator of that system. If our morality comes from social instinct, and that instinct has survival value in the face of evolutionary pressures, then consensus is nothing more than an arbitrary width we set on the Gaussian curve.
I suspect that many, perhaps even a consensus, of those who call themselves Christian do not believe in the exclusivity of Jesus' claim of divinity. Maybe they take their children to church for purely pragmatic reasons rather than because Jesus Christ is the only Son of the living God. In a multicultural society, the church is under pressure to provide social services and therapy rather than truth. If eternal life is a fantasy and the death and resurrection of Christ is a metaphor, then these are useful and harmless delusions as long as they don't cause people to strap bombs to themselves. The heart of Christianity is the compassion of Christ, not Christ Himself. After all, nine out of ten journalism professors agree.
Professor Jensen does a succinct job defining the motivations of a modern day secular humanist, although he avoids this label. Instead he has done something which is pervasive in modern thought: he stretches the definition of Christian until the word fits his own ideology. This sleight of hand is like removing the golden egg machine from the goose. The secular humanist wishes to retain the blessing of God while denying the existence of God, and although secular humanists may subscribe to Christian ethics, they deny the source and justification for the ethic. Jensen takes it a step further by "joining" a Christian church; this is an interesting move since in most Christian churches one must make a public statement of faith in Jesus Christ. This might be encouraging since God does indeed work in mysterious ways and [the Holy] Spirit intercedes with sighs too deep for words (Romans 8:26). Robert, are you listening?
Jensen takes aim at Christian theology or any theology which excludes unbelievers. In Jensen's big tent, the only creed which matters is to love your neighbor as yourself. Jesus placed this commandment on an equal footing with the other commandment which Jensen rejects; that is, to love God with all your heart, soul, strength and mind. Taken out of context, we might say that Jensen loves God because he loves others, but Jesus makes it very clear that if we reject God's Son, then we reject God. Nevertheless, Jensen's philosophy is appealing, especially to the modern agnostic or atheist, and it defines a new religion for the modern age, a radical ecumenism which no longer needs God. This religion can be taken as the intersection of all major world religions; that which those religions have in common remains, and that which contradicts is excluded. In short, the modern secular humanist builds a moral foundation on consensus alone. Indeed, consensus has replaced objective morality as the highest good in the modern world.
So the Bible is symbol, the resurrection of Jesus Christ is a metaphor, and God is just a pair of parentheses which we wrap around everything we can't understand. Jensen's dream sounds very much like John Lennon's "Imagine", and we could have universal peace if the major religions of the world would stop trying to convert and seek the common ground of universal love and compassion.
I wonder if Professor Jensen has ever tried to convert anyone to his ideology. Probably not, after all, most rational and compassionate people would naturally agree with him. Who cares if a few people in the world believe that Jesus Christ lived, died and rose from the dead. Big deal if a radical minority belief in eternal life through Christ, and take quite literally Jesus words that no one can receive eternal life without accepting Him.
And what is the consensus?
The consensus defines morality in modern civilization, doesn't it? The consensus in Nazi Germany believed that Jews were less than human and should be exterminated. The consensus in the Soviet Union under Stalin believed that private ownership of property was the ultimate evil. The consensus in the antebellum South believed that blacks were property and also not quite human. Very reasonable and otherwise moral people participated in the systematic oppression or genocide of those who were excluded from the consensus. Is it the consensus today that those systems were wrong, and if so, on what basis? Consensus? Common sense? A feeling? The golden rule?
Robert Jensen says that he is a Christian on the basis of adopting a moral system, but denies the Creator of that system. If our morality comes from social instinct, and that instinct has survival value in the face of evolutionary pressures, then consensus is nothing more than an arbitrary width we set on the Gaussian curve.
I suspect that many, perhaps even a consensus, of those who call themselves Christian do not believe in the exclusivity of Jesus' claim of divinity. Maybe they take their children to church for purely pragmatic reasons rather than because Jesus Christ is the only Son of the living God. In a multicultural society, the church is under pressure to provide social services and therapy rather than truth. If eternal life is a fantasy and the death and resurrection of Christ is a metaphor, then these are useful and harmless delusions as long as they don't cause people to strap bombs to themselves. The heart of Christianity is the compassion of Christ, not Christ Himself. After all, nine out of ten journalism professors agree.
posted by moleses | 4:08 AM
1 Comments:
Didn't know you had a blog, "Moleses." I'll have to include your link in mine! Yes, I saw this article. No doubt there's a very high percentage of nominal Christians--people who join the church for social reasons only. But at least they're in church, hearing the Word, encountering "real" Christians regularly whether they intend to or not. We can only pray for them (whoever they are--maybe people we'd never even suspect) and leave the rest to God.
Post a Comment
<< Home