On occasion, I'm asked about my beliefs: "Are you an atheist?" And I suppose I should state for the record that I'm not.
Actually, I am compelled (by historical evidence) to take the strange and remarkable life and teachings of a certain historical preacher of ancient Galilee seriously.
This is of course a troublesome and difficult discovery. It puts me (in many people's minds) in the same pigeon-hole as a whole variety of nut-jobs, humourless homophobes, scientific nay-sayers and most recently even those that have protected child-abusers. Ouch.
So firstly let me say that when other people are offended by such bigotry, I am offended too. And possibly more so; since I *ought* to be able to call some of these people my brothers and sisters. But no. I can't possibly defend them, except to say that they have failed egregiously.
Yet other people will point out that science has now, more or less, removed our need for such superstition and replaced it with reason. And I have to agree that they have a point. But actually, I don't see that science has done very much at all to disprove the existence of God, it merely explains the mechanics of the universe. It's true that we don't need to see demons behind every tree and rock; but to be honest, I never did.
Also, a good number of my friends are atheists. And I can understand that too. I used to be one. And some atheists would find that a very strange statement, since they understandably equate atheism with rationality and religion with superstition. More specifically, many people will complain that science specifically disproves the creation story from Genesis. And that I must therefore be stupid, blind, ignorant or stubborn. Well, actually, I'm not that much of a creationist. I don't read Genesis 1 in quite that way. In fact I'd send creationist and scientist alike to go read Job:38:4 where God says "Where were you when I laid the Earth's foundation?" After all, no matter how loudly any of us shout about how complete our knowledge of the universe is, I don't know anyone who was actually there when it was put together. It's a great leveller.
To those who might complain that I'm being half-hearted in my faith, I'd simply say that I don't think Genesis 1 is supposed to be read like that. In fact maybe you should go back and read what it does say (and notice what it doesn't say) and then maybe you'll join me in wondering how or why plants were made before the sun & moon. It's far more poetic than scientific - and should be read as such. Maybe (just maybe) God created plants before he created the sun and moon; but I doubt it. Maybe one day I'll understand what that means and why; but I don't imagine that the detail is going to affect how I live my life too much.
So, is Christianity irrational? Actually I believe it's based on historical evidence. Albeit historical evidence for very extraordinary events. It's not like science. It is supposed to be about real-life, and yet it's supposed to be extraordinary too. The events described in the Bible are NOT everyday events. (And you can't do experiments on them either.)
Anyway. I don't push my beliefs on other people. I'd be happy to talk about it; but I know many folk find such subjects uncomfortable, so I tend to adopt a kind of "Stealth Christianity". It's not because I think it needs to be stealthy, but simply because my reasons take a bit of explaining.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
But what do you mean by "Stealth Christianity"? Does it mean you wait for people to ask about it?
ReplyDeleteThere are so many barriers these days to talking about faith ... people assume you're mad or think they'll end up in a shouting match.
ReplyDeleteAnd yet, I think people are open to talking about life, the Universe and everything. Most Christians are not your typical zealous street preacher shouty bigot.
If it all boils down to atoms, zeros and ones there's no mystery is there?
Carl. I'd managed to edit myself away from my original title... I supposed I use the term "Stealth Christian" to describe myself - simply because it's NOT easy to talk about easily & clearly, so I often don't bother. I'm not really proud of this reticence (and this is an attempt to rationalise it.)
ReplyDeleteAwesome, well-written post that is pretty much on the money from my perspective. I struggled for a long time with creation - whether it was literal or not, and by extension, what parts of the Bible were literal. I had to abandon blind fundamentalist literalism. This was pretty painful and I felt like a second rate Christian for a while, but I came to the conclusion that the manner of creation is the why, not the how. My faith was deepened and refined through this process, I believe.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I don't look down on those who take the account literally; maybe they're right.
Thanks Gav.
ReplyDeleteOf course God could have done it literally like it says in Genesis 1. But then there's the whole question of what does it *really* say in Genesis 1 (in original Ancient Hebrew) - so who really knows? Not scientists, not theologians, and certainly not me!