Thursday, May 10, 2007
Is this Blasphemy?
A group of Atheists have launched a campaign to encourage people to make a video of themselves renouncing the Holy Spirit then posting the video on YouTube.com. I give them credit for creativity and passion and I even understand why they are upset with religion. 
I find it hard to blame them for their reaction but I feel it is a lack of education about Christianity that leads them to their conclusions. What they are rejecting is a poor image of God that Christianity has suggested is the only possible image of God. I like Marcus Borg's response to atheism. He says, "Tell me about the God you don't believe in. I probably don't believe in that either".
It is unfortunate that Christianity has only given people 2 choices: A) believe the literal and absurd view of the supernatural or B) become an atheist. There are more than 2 choices in this debate.
Also, I think the makers of this challenge misunderstand blasphemy. Denying the literal existence of a literary metaphor is hardly “blasphemy”. Accepting the Holy Spirit is not something you do by speaking, it is something you do by living. The Holy Spirit is not a human being. It is a symbol that represents compassion and specifically the type of compassion that Jesus embodied which involves self sacrifice. To commit actual blasphemy against the Holy Spirit you would need to reject all compassionate behavior and feelings. In a sense, every time we reject an opportunity to be compassionate we commit blasphemy. These people need to do more than speak a phrase if their goal is blasphemy. A life of blasphemy is a life that rejects compassion as a transformational feature of humanity. For instance, I find it interesting that this group is holding a blood drive and seems to support very compassionate minded causes. Sincere blasphemy against the Holy Spirit would mean rejecting their own blood drive or maybe even abandoning their own children or doing something fundamentally against the idea of compassion. That might get you an "A+" for blasphemy. It seems if these people are willing to start a blood drive then they are already incarnating the spirit of Christ (i.e. they are being compassionate at their own expense).
I do feel like these types of campaigns could produce some valuable changes in religion. Maybe it will be a wake up call to Christianity, but more than likely it will lead to further polarization and conflict. I'm not sure what makes me more sad, the reaction of these Atheists or the Christian theology that created their reaction.
5 comments:
I agree that there is a kind of either-or thinking that limits the discussion. Fundamentalists believe that there is only one way to view Christianity--and atheists seem to have a lot in common when they basically say the same thing. But this is limiting and narrows the debate to the point where it is defined strictly on the fundamentalists' terms. There are many ways to view religion, not just the way the fundamentalists view it.
Mike,
Of course this is the same blather that we get from Sam Harris who makes it an either or choice. Or on the other hand from that great defender of the Christian faith Kirk Cameron.
You're right, it really is a lack of education -- what Stephen Prothero speaks of in his book Religious literacy.
Thanks for the post.
I understand where these folks are. It appears, as Borg even stated, that the only "christianity" these folks see is that of fundamentalism. It took me years but to truely grasp the love and passion of the christian faith, I had to seperate myself from organized religion. Its then I started having a clue who Jesus was.
Looking at what I just wrote, I will not paint organized religion with the same brush. I have gained much from it, but I am sure you understand the heartache that comes with it.
I am not sure what you mean with your attack on "the supernatural" or on the literal reading of symbols. Could you explain. Two questions:
-To me it seems that is the linguistic division (dichotomy) between natural-supernatural that is the real problem. This kind of language is how people structure the world, and it forces people to divide themselves into natural-oriented (liberal christians or atheists for example) or super-natural-oriented (fundamentalists, charismatics). But this division is not in the Bible and it also might not exist for many people outside the western post-enlightement-context, so for christians it need not be a problem. We need to deconstruct this language and build something new. Or?
-And regarding symbols. It seems to me that you think that there is a more basic kind of reality or communication than "symbols". What would this be. An inner experience, free of words? Or words without symbols, explanations? We have to live our lives in and from some kind of picture-filled story, there is no way to get beyond this. The big question is, it seems to me, which story will lead us to a better kind of life.
/Jonas, Sweden
Jonas,
I am affirming the use of literary metaphors, but I am criticizing the focus on literalization of that symbolism. We couldn't have any decent poetry without this technique. We certainly couldn't speak about God without it. Jesus used symbolic language (parables) to speak about God.
The best example I can give is George Orwell's book "Animal Farm". Does anybody think that book is really about animals? What would Mr. Orwell say the book is really about?
When these atheists rebuke God or the Holy Spirit what they are really rebuking is the literalization of metephorical language about God. If we Christians were more open and honest about our language then the Atheists wouldn't be on the attack because I feel certain they would agree with the underlying meanings. We created a battle that didn't need to exist by holding so tight to our language.
What is the Holy Spirt? Should we take that poetic story of Pentecost as a literal historical account or should we realize it is the poetic rememberence of how lives are changed and become vibrant once they accept Jesus' vision and take on his attitude, mission, and prioriies. Or if I want to speak symbolicly, I would say that these people embodied Jesus' spirit.
Jonas can you tell me what is "spirit"?
Post a Comment