[OPEN] Humanism and the Church

[Fish and Bread]

Are liberal humanism and Christianity ultimately compatible value-systems? Why or why not?

 

[TomUK]

I don't think they can be compatible.

I was reading your post and the oft-quoted passage from 1 corinthians came to mind.

"If I give away all my possessions, and if I hand over my body so that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing."

I'm not sure if the passage is relevant but what strikes me is that even if we lead a good life, rooted in firm morals and a life that benefits all those who come into contact with, then none of it matters if we don't lead a life which is rooted in love. Humanists may lead good and honest lives which are moral even by the standards of the strictest Christian, but if their moral code isn't founded in the purity and truth of the love of Christ then it is but chaff in the wind.

 

[karen freeinchristman]

Are liberal humanism and Christianity ultimately compatible value-systems? Why or why not?

What do you mean by "compatible"?
Are you asking whether or not they can exist side-by-side (simultaneously) in the same person? Or in two different people?

 

[She]

Are liberal humanism and Christianity ultimately compatible value-systems? Why or why not?

Up to a certain point, yes. (Personally, I believe that humanism was based on Christian principles anyway. Humanism was founded by people who were raised as Christians and lived in Christian societies.)

However, there is one major hurdle. Whereas Christians believe that choosing to end another person's life is not acceptable, under any circumstances, humanists tend to go towards the belief that this is acceptable in certain circumstances.

Example: the recent euthanasia bill in the UK. This was strongly condemned by Dr Rowan Williams. He stopped the bill from being passed. I respect him for that and I thank God for him.

 

[Fish and Bread]

What do you mean by "compatible"?
Are you asking whether or not they can exist side-by-side (simultaneously) in the same person? Or in two different people?

I am asking if, when all is said and done, someone can be both a true Christian and a true humanist. I think this is a very pertinent question, since many humanist values are being incorporated in Christianity in general and into Anglicanism in particular. Are these value systems that can be successfully blended without compromising the integrity of either? Or do they contradict each other on major points?

 

[No Swansong]

My understanding of Humanism is that humanity is ultimately responsible for their own destiny. I categorically deny this as being true.

 

[higgs2]

What is liberal humanism?

 

[karen freeinchristman]

My vicar told me that he once was waiting "in the wings" at the crematorium for the start of the memorial service that he was taking. Another service was still finishing up, and it was a humanist's memorial service. My vicar thought it was interesting to hear in the eulogy that the recently departed person would now be with their previously departed loved ones.

Do humanists believe in the afterlife?

 

[karen freeinchristman]

Some people think that Buddhism is compatable with Christianity. But I guess that is going off-topic.

 

[TomUK]

My vicar thought it was interesting to hear in the eulogy that the recently departed person would now be with their previously departed loved ones.

Why are some people so determined that they want to be anything but a Christian?

 

[TomUK]

Some people think that Buddhism is compatable with Christianity. But I guess that is going off-topic.

I would say that there are things present within Buddhism which could be edifying to a Christian. I think somewhere along the line that distinction between edifying and compatible has become blurred and sadly a number of people fall into serious error over it.

 

[Rev. Smith]

Are liberal humanism and Christianity ultimately compatible value-systems? Why or why not?

The value systems can certainly be compatable, nothing in the Christian moral code would be offensvie to the sensabilities of a humanist, and likewise nothing in the humanist code would be offensive to the Christian, with the exception (a BIG exception) of the issues surrounding human life.

Most humanists I know value only the lives of persons now present, thus they are against the death penalty for crimes, but in favor of abortion.

Most Chrisitians I know are against any murder, and are thus opposed to abortion as the taking of innocent life, and favor the death penalty as the taking of "guilty life", in accord with the Old Testament.

(for the record I am part of the Catholic tradition that holds that all life is sacred, and thus oppose both abortion and the death penalty).

But more important then the differances in morals (due to the lack of an "other" directed theology) - Humanism, at its very best, fulfills only one of the three pillars of a Holy life. it lacks either the love for God, or the keeping of the commandments. Since Jesus taught us that eternal life belongs to those who love God, AND their neighbor and keep the commandments our Humanist friends only have 1 of 3, a failing score by any standard.

(I will save a discusssuion of the pitfalls of ad hoc morality for another thread...)

 

[TomUK]

I agreed with everything there, until i saw that you were wearing excessively brightly coloured socks!

 

[Fish and Bread]

What is liberal humanism?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism includes a fairly good summary.

 

[Inside Edge]

Why are some people so determined that they want to be anything but a Christian

This is my understanding of modern humanism. At the university I attended, the only commonality among the humanist meetings and advertisements was that nothing and no one present was Chrisitian. The signs and posters advertised Islam, Buddhism, etc etc, but Christianity appeared to be incompatible.

As for the answer to Tom's question: well, because Christianity has rubbed a lot of people the wrong way over the millenia (particularly in the West). By and large, a lot of people's only exposure to Christianity is arrogance, obnoxious behaviour, anti-intellectualism, and condemnation.

Often, anything is better than getting hit with those things. Couple that with a general lack of exposure to anything else, and the "anything else" looks more reputable.

 

[Fish and Bread]

Why are some people so determined that they want to be anything but a Christian?

People from a Christian background who have spiritual or philosophical beliefs outside the Christian mainstream in some cases tend to take a lot of flack no matter what decision they make about continuing to practice. If people, for example, doesn't believe in the divinity of Christ and continue to call themselves Christian, they're referred to very derisively by certain groups and are told that they're damning themselves by receiving communion unworthily or teaching false doctrines -- the story of how Bishop Spong has attacked while attending a funeral leaps to mind here. On the other hand, if they leave people ask "Do you hate Christianity so much that you can't associate with us anymore? Why not just come and socialize and enjoy or receive edification from the parts you agree with?".

As a result, I try my best to support people in making whatever decision they feel is best for them emotionally and spiritually. No matter what decision people faced with such a situation make, someone is going to be upset with them, and I try to make a point of not being one of the people upset. I think people are first and foremost bound by their own consciences and I feel strongly about trying to respect that within reason.

 

[Finella]

The value systems can certainly be compatable, nothing in the Christian moral code would be offensvie to the sensabilities of a humanist, and likewise nothing in the humanist code would be offensive to the Christian, with the exception (a BIG exception) of the issues surrounding human life.

Most humanists I know value only the lives of persons now present, thus they are against the death penalty for crimes, but in favor of abortion.

Most Chrisitians I know are against any murder, and are thus opposed to abortion as the taking of innocent life, and favor the death penalty as the taking of "guilty life", in accord with the Old Testament.

(for the record I am part of the Catholic tradition that holds that all life is sacred, and thus oppose both abortion and the death penalty).

But more important then the differances in morals (due to the lack of an "other" directed theology) - Humanism, at its very best, fulfills only one of the three pillars of a Holy life. it lacks either the love for God, or the keeping of the commandments. Since Jesus taught us that eternal life belongs to those who love God, AND their neighbor and keep the commandments our Humanist friends only have 1 of 3, a failing score by any standard.

(I will save a discusssuion of the pitfalls of ad hoc morality for another thread...)

Whoa, whoa, whoa, there... them's some broad strokes, my friend.

Your assertion that "Most humanists I know value only the lives of persons now present, thus they are against the death penalty for crimes, but in favor of abortion" is way too simplistic. I have witnessed a dear friend, a humanist for all intents and purposes, have to struggle with terminating a pregnancy because the baby had a very serious defect that would cause the child to suffer and ultimately die shortly after birth. She and her husband sought second and third opinions, and they did their own research -- the defect was clear, and there was nothing that could be done. Heartbreakingly, she and her husband chose to end the pregnancy, and they delivered their baby as lovingly as they could... they held him, wondered in his form, and took pictures and still mourn his loss. But they are at peace with this decision, knowing that they prevented the suffering they knew he would have to endure. There was no question to my friend that this life inside her was indeed a human life, and she took the decision to end it extremely seriously. The sacredness that she and her husband felt in regard to that life is very deep and real.

I share this example to show that this love and wonder in life is not "ad hoc" and it is certainly is an example of merciful love. There is also nothing here that, to our minds, is incompatible with Christian respect for life. It was because of this profound respect for this child that the decision was made-- selflessly, not selfishly hoping for an unlikely miracle to happen, and in denial of the seriousness of the child's situation.

Sorry for getting a bit wound up here... these events were fairly recent and the feelings are still fresh. The experience has shown me that ethical issues around life are far more complex than many would have us believe.

 

[Simon_Templar]

In order to really discuss this you have to make a distinction between humanism beginning in the renaissance and up through the enlightenment which was a philosophical outlook based on certain beliefs about humanity, and what it meant to be human.

And the modern religion often identified as "secular humanism" (although it has both marxist and "cosmic/new age" forms as well).

The former, which I'll call renaissance humanism, was born out of the proliferation of art and literature which came out of the renaissance.
The Scholastics used classical greek philosophy and consulted classical sources, but the humanists broadened the consumption of literature beyond rhetoric and logic into comedy, tragedy, poetry etc.

This kind of humanism was born directly out of "the humanities". The areas of study which the ancients had identified with the essence of human nature. To be human was to study politics, literature, religion, art, etc.

The scholastics had devoted their study of the classics almost entirely to religion and the study of God. As the source material available became greater it inspired the great itallian artists, then poets and authors, all of this together produced humanism. The older medieval/scholastic view was seen as to restrictive, and in a very real way to narrow minded. To the point of view of the humanist, the medievals took everything too seriously.. they could not take even the silly and funny things of life without somehow turning them into a treatise on theology.

The humanists in turn made humor and satire their weapons to poke at the humorless scholastics. Its not that the humanists gave up studying God, but they began to also study man, and everything to do with him.. literature, art, politics, etc.

This form of humanism is compatible with christianity, and in some ways necessary for christianity. As with anything its not without it dangers when taken to extremes.

That brings us to modern humanism. As with the scientific revolution, humanism and the enlightenment began as christian phenomenon, but the freedom which enabled these movements also allowed them to be corrupted and in short order both became divorced from christianity. Humanism began to change from simply studying the persuits of humanity, to elevating humanity to undue levels. Each new era had its movement which furthered this, first Deism, God is there but he has left man to determine everything and he doesn't get involved. then Transendentalism, god is there but 'he' really is a non specific inspirative force which reveals itself through mankind and the highest morality the highest good is to realize that this divine spirit is revealed through you in radical individualism. To relativism today, there is no transendant standard, there is only man. What each man thinks, is his only law.

By degree this became worse until today humanism is its own religious system based on the belief that man is central. Mankind is at the center of everything. There is no standard other man (ie self) by which we can measure anything. There is no truth other than that which we decide etc.

This kind of humanism is entirely incompatible with Christianity. In fact, it is the original temptation to which Eve succumed in the garden "you shall be as gods".

The sad irony of this is that this is an elevation of man in name only, in reality it is merely a debasement of divinity.

 

[Simon_Templar]

I would say that there are things present within Buddhism which could be edifying to a Christian. I think somewhere along the line that distinction between edifying and compatible has become blurred and sadly a number of people fall into serious error over it.

This is an interesting conversation to me because it gets at something that is a relatively new revelation for me.

On the surface budhism and Christianity are very similar in terms of ethics. In some ways almost identical. This has given rise to many of the comparisons between them. Some claims that Jesus was a budhist, and many psudo christians who think christianity is good but they prefer something about budha.

There are infact significant differences between the teachings of christianity and budhism, which do produce significant differences in motivation and in result.

However, the most important, central difference is Jesus Christ. Budha said "my teachings are the path to enlightenment" Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, and the life" "I am the bread of life" "if you are thirsty drink of me".

Christians (including me) have made a huge mistake by thinking in these quotes that Jesus was referring to his teachings, just as budha was. Jesus did not mean that his tecahings were "the way the truth and the life" he meant exactly what he said "I AM".

Budha offered a set of teachings, Jesus offered himself. This has been the single biggest revelation for me in the last few years... that at the center of Christianity is not Jesus' teachings.. but Jesus himself.

Now this line of talking has the danger that some might take it to mean that we don't need to obey, or need to be moral, and we absolutely do because those things are the fruit of Christ in us... but the real issue is Christ in us.

 

[karen freeinchristman]

This has been the single biggest revelation for me in the last few years... that at the center of Christianity is not Jesus' teachings.. but Jesus himself.

Now this line of talking has the danger that some might take it to mean that we don't need to obey, or need to be moral, and we absolutely do because those things are the fruit of Christ in us... but the real issue is Christ in us.

Praise God!