Religionless Christianity: Faith in the Modern Age

Philosophy of Religion
1

To give some background, I grew up a very lukewarm Roman Catholic; My dad went to church on Sundays, and my mother stayed home. I grew up knowing the Lord’s Prayer and knowing the moral truths outlined in the Sermon on the Mount. We went to church two times a year on Christmas and Easter, three if you count occasionally on Thanksgiving Day.

I entered a Catholic middle school and I believe that is where my questioning began. Keeping in mind the moral teachings of Jesus, my own personal “bible” was Meditations by Marcus Aurelius and the works of Epictetus; I thought that these were completely rational guides on how to live my life and whenever we prayed or received communion at church, I just did it all to “fit in” in fear of being reprimanded. As I went on in my adolescence, I was exposed to Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Leo Tolstoy, Albert Camus, and gained an interest in any kind of thinking that pointed to living a happy, virtuous, and wise life.

I did not formally become convinced of the possibility of the existence of God until I entered college. I began to read Plato’s dialogues, Aristotle’s Metaphysics, Nicomachean Ethics, and On the Soul, and found myself “converted” by reading Søren Kierkegaard, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Nikolai Berdyaev, Lev Shestov, Martin Buber, rereading Dostoyevsky, and becoming interested in the work of Ludwig Wittgenstein and William James. I became extremely interested in phenomenology, reading Edmund Husserl, Martin Heidegger, Max Scheler, and Edith Stein. I found myself engaged by Classical Chinese philosophy, with a particular interest in Confucianism and Daoism, and Indian philosophy, with an interest in Early Buddhism and the ideas found in The Upanishads, and became fascinated by the thought of the Kyoto School, mainly the work of Kitaro Nishida, Hajime Tanabe, and Keiji Nishitani.

My first go at a graduate program, which I did not complete, was at a Catholic school and minor seminary where I studied theology and Thomistic philosophy. My engagement with the prior thinkers continued, and I became formally acquainted with the works of St. Thomas Aquinas, paying special attention to his commentary on Nicomachean Ethics and his short work On Being and Essence, and became interested in the thought of the Lublin School of Thomism, namely, the works of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II such as Person and Act, The Lublin Lectures, Considerations on the Essence of Man, and his dissertation on Scheler.

By this point, I tried to be a devout Catholic. I really tried. But ironically, the more I read all the prior thinkers, engaged with individuals like Meister Eckhart, Henry Suso, John Tauler, The Theologia Germanica (which was banned by the Catholic Church at one point), The Cloud of Unknowing, St. John of the Cross, and fluttered around with the idea of formal conversion to one of the Orthodox Churches, the less devout I grew. But this was not necessarily turning me back into an agnostic or bringing me into full-blown atheism. The less devout a Catholic I became, even though I was actually “playing pretend,” the deeper my faith became. I began to see that faith is a personal thing, that I have the capacity to actualize my free will through moral choices, and that I ultimately stand alone before God. Here and now, my faith is stronger than ever, and it is only because I engaged with these things and still do, aligning myself with Christian existentialism.

Kierkegaard said it plainly:

“Christendom has done away with Christianity, without being quite aware of it. The consequence is that, if anything is to be done, one must try again to introduce Christianity into Christendom.” - Soren Kirekegaard, Attack Upon Christendom

I think that a majority of Christians in the United States are, in fact, playing pretend, as I tried to do, and I do not fault them for it; Faith brings a sense of meaning, rituals bring a sense of community, the Bible brings about moral thinking. However, I think that a genuine form of Christianity will not thrive in Catholicism, amongst Protestants like Lutherans, Methodists, Anglicans, Presbyterians, or Baptists, and even amongst the Orthodox (who, in my opinion, are the most original in their practice and thinking). Christianity will thrive, bluntly put, without religion. This does not mean that one shouldn’t consider joining a church of some kind. That brings lots of good things as stated prior, but it should be totally up to you and you alone (I still flutter around with the idea of joining one of the Orthodox Churches).

Bonhoeffer writes the following:

“Are there religionless Christians? If religion is only a garment of Christianity–and even this garment has looked very different at different times–then what is a religionless Christianity?.. Religious man must therefore live in the godless world, without attempting to gloss over or explain its ungodliness in some religious way or other. He must live a ‘secular’ life, and thereby share in God’s sufferings. He may live a ‘secular’ life (as one who has been freed from false religious obligations and inhibitions). To be a Christian does not mean to be religious in a particular way, to make something of oneself (a sinner, a penitent, or a saint) on the basis of some method or other, but to be a man–not a type of man, but the man that Christ creates in us. It is not the religious act that makes the Christian, but participation in the sufferings of God in the secular life.” - Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison

Religious fundamentalists who equate secularism with atheism are wrong. Secularism is the separation of Church and state, religion and government. It allows the individual the total freedom to believe in what they want so long as it’s not hurting anyone. This, as I see it, is the future of human civilization. If we view Christianity as “Believe in X as the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church” then Christianity will become unimportant in the West. If we view Christianity as an ontological change that happens in the human person through faith and living a life guided by truth, goodness, beauty, order, and virtue and avoiding vice or sin, then I truly think it will thrive.

2

Can I ask what the word ‘faith’ means in your quote above?

3

Faith, to me, is trusting in my convictions that there is a God and that my actions align with a moral standard despite the fact that others may be skeptical of what I believe or say. No one can objectively prove or disprove the existence of God. I think one can prove or disprove certain conceptions of God, but one cannot disprove the idea of God altogether. With God as an idea, one can still doubt here and there the existence of an actual real deity. As Kierkegaard writes, “Everything must be doubted.”

4

OK. I myself see a contradiction between being certain there is a God and doubting everything, but I guess it depends.

What do you know about the God of Whom you are certain?

5

I know He wants me to live in accordance with virtue, not to judge anyone poorly, love my neighbor as myself, be kind to people, love my enemies, and try my best to do good in the world. Someone wiser than I said it best:

"Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.” - Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

6

OK, but lots of humanists think the same way about it. In fact, their moral system is based on something like that.

But they would deny having faith.

7

@Existentialism97 Isn’t secular liberalism, with its emphasis on human rights and universal human dignity, really just Christianity minus religion? Some even say that activist identity politics is religious fundamentalism in secular clothes.

8

But Christianity is not a monolith.

Sure, there are some Christians who do adhere to the teachings of Christians, but there are some that have co-opted the designation and turned it into a mockery of all Jesus taught.

9

I would agree with you to some extent. I think Identity politics is 100% religious fundamentalism in secular clothes. Secular liberalism, in my opinion, replaces a metaphysical end, whatever that may be, with what the government does or does not do. Unless the values of secular liberalism seek an end that promotes the Good, this can be problematic.

10

Some Christians use the Gospel to exploit people and make money. Others realize that it is impossible to serve two masters.

11

@Existentialism97

There is no reasonably getting around the fact that Christianity is a factory for whitewashed tombs if not wolves in sheeps clothing - insofar as Jesus defined those terms. The founational beliefs of Christianity all but guarantees it.

It’s a tragedy that Christianity is built upon the Pauline gospel rather than the gospel preached by Jesus. Over the years many have realized this. For example:
Extract from Thomas Jefferson to William Short
Monticello Apr. 13. 20.
among the sayings & discourses imputed to him by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence: and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being. I separate therefore the gold from the dross; restore to him the former, & leave the latter to the stupidity of some, and roguery of others of his disciples. of this band of dupes and impostors, Paul was the great Coryphaeus, and first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus. these palpable interpolations and falsifications of his doctrines led me to try to sift them apart.

Hard to come up with a person throughout history who has been more misunderstood than Jesus. There is a wide gulf between the gospel preached by Jesus - which is contained in the words attributed to him in the four gospels from the beginning of his ministry and the crucifixion - and the foundational beliefs of Christianity. For all intents and purposes, they are in direct opposition to each other.

Given the foundational beliefs of Christianity, the vast majority of Christians, if not all, never come to the realization that it is impossible to serve two masters - as is logically consistent with the gospel preached by Jesus.

12

Well it’s certainly fashionable to rubbish liberalism these days as failing and decadent but my take is that it has mostly drawn on Christian values - protection of the weak, welcoming the stranger, upholding rights. Is what you are arguing just a variation of the Christian apologist dogma that without God as a foundation there’s no basis to morality?

13

But I think I have misread you. You are talking about faith without the accoutrements/disfunctions of religion I think. As a non-theist, I can’t really comment. :wink:

14

I see where you are coming from but I think St. Paul is radically misunderstood. He definitely understood the point about faith in Christ as bringing about an ontological change in the person. I think almost every denomination of Christianity misunderstands him or goes so far as to pervert what he writes. The Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox (and to a lesser extent Eastern Catholics and Eastern Protestants), whom I am sympathetic to, don’t do that.

15

Quite the contrary; Morality can exist independent of God. I think a metaphysical end, whether it’s a concept of God, the Good, the Logos, or even something like natura naturans, nature that creates, provides a sense of meaning for the individual. Well, it can provide a sense of meaning, but the individual needs to act on it.

Yes, you are quite right. I think the idea of religionless Christianity can be applied to other religious traditions, too. What would a religionless Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism, Daoism, or Confucianism look like? Of course, one does not have to view Buddhism, Daoism, and Confucianism as “religious,” but there are people who do.

16

Other than the Greeks, Romans, Chinese, Indians, and Persians, the first humanists were Christians. It only came about during the Renaissance, was fine tuned by the Reformation (although you did get guys like John Calvin who was bitter about everything), and peaked during the Enlightenment. They all came to realize that what Jesus said and did was more important than superstitious thinking.

17

Humanism is just a word to me. I’m trying to point at people who have no use for faith and yet behave in lofty ways.

In other words, I don’t think moral behavior has to come from anything other than looking at the world, feeling empathy, and working out the best ways to act.

But if Christianity is useful in pushing someone in that direction, more power to it. Same with other religions.

1 Like
18

The question which I’m grappling with is death. I too have read widely in philosophy and religion (and I admire the thoroughness of your reading.) But I find at this point I no longer believe death is the end. Well — I know it is for me, for this person, this born being. And I don’t know if there are heavens or hells, but I do believe that these beliefs signify something real — that they’re not simply folklore or remnants of a bygone age.

Which brings me to the question of the ‘horizon of being’. For naturalism, death is the horizon of being. Immortality can only be sought in works and our progeny. We ‘live on’ through what we’ve accomplished, through our children. We’ve ‘made our mark’. But I think the religious sense of the ‘life eternal’ is something radically more than that.

I’m persuaded by the Buddhist mythology of saṃsāra, the eternal cycle of birth and death. But this is not a comfort. If you study the tradition, you will see that it is generally assumed that the next life may be considerably less propitious than this one, and Buddhism has hells aplenty. (Personally, I confess faith in Amida Buddha :folded_hands: )

So, I think this marks the divide from naturalism. For naturalism, we’re another species, albeit a unique species. But as individuals, our day will come, the body will ‘return to the elements’ (a Buddhist expression) and…well, and what? There is no ‘and’!

Philosophically speaking, I think hints of the deathless, the immortal, can be found throughout the higher religions. (There’s a book in modern analytic philosophy, Surviving Death, Mark Johnson, which explores the idea.) But casting aside the insights of revealed religions, it is almost impossible to undersatnd what that is. ‘Through a glass, darkly.’ Certainly we can’t see it through the natural philosophy which defines our culture and which defines itself in opposition to such notions. That death IS the end is (ironically) an ‘article of faith’.

But I’m not convinced of the naturalist argument that the vision of the ‘life eternal’ is wish-fulfilment or rationalisation. After all, in what sense can we have faith in reason, if reason itself is the product of the blind watchmaker? I don’t want to get into ID culture wars, but I think it’s a valid question: if life is, as many seem to assume, a lottery, then what meaning can it have? I think grappling with that question is essential to any kind of religion. Me, I think ‘reason points beyond itself’, but again, that ‘beyond’ is not somewhere we can easily navigate to.

To put it in a philosophical register: in human form, life has reached the point where it can see into its nature, where it can reflect on what it is. Perhaps you could say that salvation (or liberation in the Eastern sense) is a matter of realising what Alan Watts called The Supreme Identity in his book of that name. So that realisation ‘broadens the horizon of being’, so to speak. We become something more than or other than an individual ego. But again that is not an easy undertaking. It’s not a casual question.

I agree, but when secular philosophy becomes an ideology, then it often wears the garb of atheism. But now we’re seeing the emergence of all of these movements grappling anew with religious truth, with philosophical questions of goodness and the ‘Meaning Crisis’. Post-secularism, as it has been called, also ‘meta-modernism’. The whole culture is in flux — as it should be!