i guess that's possible i know Christian atheism is a thing, where you follow the moral teachings of Jesus but disbelieve in god
Christian atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It really depends, of course, on how one defines Christian Atheism (as
there are several variations) - and to take it further, defining what it means to be both spiritual and an atheist. Christianity is not the only religion experiencing this reality.....a
If interested, I was rather fascinated by those who noted themselves to be Atheist Muslim - as seen in
Ali A. Rizvi: Why I Call Myself an 'Atheist Muslim'. Outside of that, As said elsewhere, pantheism is an Eastern worldview
that is deeply spiritual even though there is no expression of belief in gods or goddesses. And other similar worldviews would be Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered Buddhism or Taoism and others.
Also, from a Christian perspective, early Christians were in fact called atheists because they refused to participate in the "religion" of the day. Historically, it was very interesting to see the ways fingers began to point at those who failed to honor the gods properly, at the atheists like the followers of Jesus were being blamed
and how Justin responded to that....and yet even
being willing to be labeled as "atheists" for not worshiping the Roman gods or the Emperor, they understood that accepting being seen as atheists did not mean automatically that faith in God was up for grabs.
There are Christians today who have no issue discussing the dynamic of being both atheist and spiritual. People that come immediately to mind are others such as Frank Shaeefer.
As
he noted:
I'd like to change the debate on religion, actually I'd like to finish off BOTH the New Atheist movement and the religious fundamentalists! I think by introducing a note of paradox, both sets of absolutists can be vanquished. After all this is supposed to be the postmodern age. Certainty is so has been! ..... I do not always believe, let alone know, if God exists. I do not always know he, she, or it does not exist either, though there are long patches in my life when it seems God never did exist. What I know is that I see the Creator in Jesus or nowhere. What I know is that I see Jesus in my children and grandchildrens love. What I know is that I rediscover hope again and again through my wife Genies love. What I know is that Mother Maria loved unto death. What I know is that sometimes something too good to be true, is true.
...Christs love unto death and resurrection however we interpret those words is a means of freeing us from the anguish of mortality. Our desire for some sort of guarantee of eternal life and all fundamentalist attempts to describe it are self-defeating. Trying to nail down theological certainties is putting faith in our imagination rather than in Gods.
What's intriguing about what Frank has done is that Frank is one who was a big name in the Evangelical Right world...and who later converted to Eastern Orthodoxy, as seen here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-CJhPlmznA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4YP-4oZ3mI
His videos were used extensively by the Orthodox Church when it came to discussing Church History and helping others in their journey toward Eastern Orthodoxy and faith in Christ.
So when I heard that he was pushing the title "Christian Atheism", I was a bit taken off guard. To be clear, the concept of Christian Atheism is not one I am opposed to at all points. I can get having times of wondering how close one is to the Lord - or even feeling God is absent. The
Dark Night of the Soul moments when it feels we're losing our faith - and in that sense alone can I see someone having moments where atheism seems quite real.
But I don't think that's where Frank Shaeffer was going. Frank is one who has a penchant for drama and exaggeration to make his points - and his pairing of the two words "Christian" and "Atheism" is certainly an attempt to evoke both sides. and the terms. "Christian Atheist" being paired intentionally would definitely make for dramatic impact - and can be understood when knowing what the context is, in the same way that there are others who are
Christian Humanists who note that the Humanism they adhere to (i.e. man is made in God's Image/has value - regardless of if he's a believer in Christ or not) is radically from the variation known as Secular Humanism (i.e. believing man to be the center of all existence, saying God cannot be real, morality is relative, etc.).
Seeing him speaking of belief in God/Christ and yet calling himself a Christian Atheist, it seemed it would make more sense for him to be known as a-theist and not an atheist. His use of the language "Atheist" seems to advocate support more so for one aspect of the atheistic system rather than claiming that he doesn't believe Christ exists.....
But Frank is very nuanced in his views/stances - and what follows is a simple attempt at addressing some of the things I've seen him say over time - and I do hope it's understood that the the references given are done with the caveat that they are simply like footnotes. The attempt to leave a bread crumb trail for others to follow along for confirmation on where stances were gained since one cannot cover it all here.
With Frank, his chronology over the past couple of years has taken a couple of sharp turns that I find very hard to dismiss. In example, in January of 2012, he made it a point to discuss the issue of his stance with Atheism and his support of much of it. This can be verified in his recorded session known as
Frank Schaeffer: The Case for Spirituality in the Age of Doubt: How Both Atheism and Christian Fundamentalism Miss the Mark on Faith. In regards to atheists, Frank spoke of a few e-mail conversations he had with the late Christopher Hitchens wherein Hitch berated him for continuing in his beliefs in spite of his first hand knowledge of the vagaries of Christianity. In his session, Frank referred to Hitchens in a kind/inviting manner, stating that the brusqueness of his e-mails were what was to be expected from Hitchens....and later went on to say that he felt that atheists could be moral/ good people without the parameters of religion governing their life.
And later on, there was a moment after his talk where a lady in the congregation demanded that Frank explain how his Orthodox priest (
could give him communion. For the excerpt:
The Lady I am not sure why your priest would give you communion when you dont even hold the faith that Christ is risen. Orthodoxy means right belief!
Frank Sure. But one of the basic tenants of Orthodox belief is that the only persons salvation you worry about is your own. And I didnt say I didnt believe Christ is risen, I said I dont know. Nor did Thomas. Nor do you.
With the mindset being that no one can truly know fully whether Christ has risen, it seemed he was very much leaning toward the dynamic of how no one can ever have certainty on the Faith. And this is something that seemed to shift even further in time.
In example, in October 7th of 2012 Frank discussed his personal theological views at Revolution NYC, an emergent congregation in Brooklyn, NY. One can hear the entire presentation in
Revolution Church » Frank Talk With Jay.
This is what he said directly (for brief highlights/ excerpt):
I describe myself as a Christian atheist.
That describes the arc of my feelings in any given day
Why cant you be an atheist some days and love God other days?
.....There are days Im married, there are days Im not married. There are days I love my wife, there are days I fight with my wife
Why when it comes to theological questions, certainty is given a premium when nothing else in life works that way?
"....If you take the Christian teaching seriously that Jesus is the son of God, then obviously his life is the lens through which you read the rest of scripture and pick and choose what you will do and not do because he said there are parts of the law that are !@$^#!#$. [Jesus said] The law says [do this,] but I say dont do this. So therefore, read the Bible expecting to edit it and get rid of the crap and stick with the stuff that fits with the life testimony, which ends with Jesus saying Forgive them for they know not what they do.
....Evil is only evil because its ugly. There is no such thing as bad actions theres just ugly actions
When we say evil, its not a constant
were at a primitive way station on the way to something else.
....The answer to evil is not now. The answer to evil is in the future that you cant see and thats where I think faith comes in.
......who we believe Jesus is is not the point........We are on a way station, on a journey that God is also traveling as a creator. This is not it. Were only getting the first glimmers of it. The first real sign post for me is Forgive them for they know not what they do. Thats a new command.
There really is ethical evolution
Follow that path of ethical evolution that will eventually get us to an intended end point.
Francis noted much more besides that in the interview - and I have included the interview reference/link so as to avoid taking him out of context. But those were some of the highlights of the session. It seemed like his main problem is certainty about any belief - and he went out of his way to deride both Christian fundamentalist and atheists for holding their beliefs with conviction. That was something I really couldn't avoid easily as being a big deal in his shift of emphasis.
But earlier in last year (December 2013), he defended against atheism - saying atheism is a belief system in itself and explaining why belief in Christ makes better sense of the world than no belief at all - as seen in his video session
Free Preview: Why I'm Not an Atheist with Frank Schaeffer.
And this previous May (2014), he shared in-depth on the issue of what he meant when it came to his book "Why I am an Atheist who believes in God" - noting to the audience how others will continually change their mind as time goes on and times where it's okay to have moments/seasons where you claim belief in Christ and yet really don't believe God exists - more here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZ5vH381N_c&feature=youtu.be
This is where he seemed to clarify that his use of the terms "Atheist" is that we need new categories beyond Atheism and Theism - and that both need to have a reconciliation on the subject of being comfortable with paradox and not having to claim to know everything.
For verification, he shared more of the same in other Orthodox study groups - as seen from February 2014 in
Frank Schaeffer: The Journey and in his in-depth interviews on the matter - seen in
Frank Schaeffer and I talk about his new book "Why I Am An Atheist Who Believes In God.
The context of what he says has aspects that do make sense - especially in regards to him noting that even atheists can do works of righteousness and things which make a difference. Some of the language he used seems similar to what
Pop[URL="http://www.christianforums.com/t7749020/#post63167942"]e Francis noted when it came to morality/atheism and saying that even those who do not believe can move closer to the acceptance of their redemption by good acts moving their heart to the truth. .....[/URL]
Nonetheless, I am still cautious in light of other things he has noted which are definitely more in line with Deism rather than true belief in Christ as Christ noted. Whereas Pope Francis seemed to not be of the mindset that Christ (as He presented Himself) was optional when it comes to salvation, it seemed what Frank has noted has indeed supported the opposite.
But I can get where he is coming from when it comes to the possibility of one being both Atheist and Spiritual or Christian - depending on how one understands things to be.
