Consider this a first draft. I am free-writing here without spending too much time refining my ideas. I promised sometime last month to give a response to the "Dissident Voice: Why We Let an Atheist Join Our Church" article from the pastor at St. Andrew, and only now am I coming around to it.
Speaking mostly from my experience as a member of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), I want to point out that there is a great divide in the universal Church (spoken of in the great creeds as the catholic Church). In the United States in particular, we have etched a deep divide that emerges primarily from our simplified political perspectives of conservative vs. liberal. The divide is not primarily doctrinal; it is not primarily based on Scriptural interpretation (hermeneutics, for all you theologically-minded types); the divide is not primarily in Christian practice. The divide manifests itself in minor disputes of all of these (doctrine, hermeneutics and praxis), but they are not where it begins. What the church in the Americas looks like is "evangelical" (conservative) vs. a modern form of Protestant liberalism.
When I first read Rev. Rigby's and Dr. Jenson's articles, I was reminded of this overly-simplistic divide. For Jenson and for Rigby, it seems, joining a church is a political act, not a faith act. Welcome to the Modern Church.
I specifically chose to say "Modern" Church, because I think this is a Modernist reduction of the role of the Church in society. The Church has been reduced to one of its functions: to speak (or not) in the political arena. Rigby also mentions the love commandment, and I'll deal with that later.
If the Church is primarily and originally a political organization, than it is not based in the life of Jesus Christ, but only in a segment of his teachings. Jesus was a political voice, there is no doubt about it. But his life is not reducible to politics, nor WWJD ethics, nor the cross. His life, death and resurrection embody and enflesh (our favorite, possibly fictitious word at my Seminary) God's movement towards us, and our faithful movement, in response, towards God. We say such creeds as Rigby dismisses ("While I have nothing against the creeds per se, if they do not sing of a love for all humankind they are evil and must be renounced as idolatrous."), we say these creeds not because they qualify or substitute for faith, but because they teach us the wider spectrum of faith. They teach us that faith is not reducible to only one of its aspects, but that the church is rooted in a particular history: the history of God on this earth, with particular emphasis on the salvation history of God in Christ, and the future history of God in our lives, by means of God, the Holy Spirit. The creeds can become idolatrous, obviously, but we tend toward idolatry in many forms, and as far as I'm concerned, the current number one on the American idolatry list is politics.
I think Rigby's saving grace lies in his expression of the need for love of humankind in the Church. I think that's great, but what he omits is the love of God. According to Christian faith, as I understand it, the two are inseparable. How can someone who does not believe in God love God? Why is love of neighbor valued more highly for membership at St. Andrews?
There are many political organizations in the country and in the world that do not have faith as a requisite component. The Republican and Democratic Parties come to mind. If you want to maintain your atheism and act politically, why not dedicate your life to one of these other organizations? If you are sympathetic to the activism of a particular congregation, as Jenson says he is, work with them, support them financially, dialog with them, put them on speed-dial for volunteers to help you. But why make a non-faith commitment to a community of faith?
Recent Comments