Question:
Is it possible to make a meaningful distinction between no longer being a Christian because you have;
(a) rejected Christianity,
(b) transcended Christianity.
A couple of Thoreau's remarks seem to suggest the possibility of transcending Christianity. In a letter to his friend Harrison Blake Thoreau writes "It is either the Tribune on the plain, a sermon on the mount, or a very private ecstasy still higher up." In Civil Disobedience Thoreau remarks;They who know of no purer sources of truth, who have traced up its stream no higher, stand, and wisely stand, by the Bible and the Constitution, and drink at it there with reverence and humility; but they who behold where it comes trickling into this lake or that pool, gird up their loins once more, and continue their pilgrimage toward its fountain-head.
[Christ] taught mankind but imperfectly how to live; his thoughts were all directed toward another world. There is another kind of success than his. Even here we have a sort of living to get, and must buffet it somewhat longer. There are various tough problems yet to solve, and we must make shift to live, betwixt spirit and matter, such a human life as we can.Thoughts, comments, or suggestions?
9 comments:
It probably sounds pretty arrogant. but I'd say I'm transcending rather than rejecting. I'm not trying to get away from religion, I just have no need for much of it now; my worldview happily stands by itself.
Added to that, I find Christianity much "smaller" than my current thinking—for a long time, Christianity has provided an incredibly useful framework and system in which to base my thinking, but I'm now finding it more restrictive than helpful.
So consider that a resounding yes! to option b. :)
I think I agree with Thoreau's idea, but it's probably hard for those of us who haven't achieved enlightenment to properly recognise those who have.
Have you heard of Thomas Merton? Might be worth reading some of his stuff. He was a Catholic monk who wrote a lot about Zen.
I disagree with Thoreau's appraisal of Jesus' teaching. My unscholarly opinion is that it was very much geared toward THIS world. And, being a Christian, I'd assert that his teachings on how to live, which boil down to "Love God with all your being, treat other people as well as you treat yourself, and give up your own ambition and priorities for the sake of others" ARE perfect - although that's a belief, not a conclusion arrived at by formal logic.
I'd argue that one who has 'transcended' christianity has changed theology to a different position within christianity (but well outside the fundamentalist norms). So maybe you could say transcended fundamentalist \ traditionalist christianity?
I guess we're making a distinction here between two kinds of Christianity - ie Christianity as it has been played out, versus Christianity as some of us think it should be - a distinction that Thoreau might not have considered.
I'm not entirely sure where Thoreau stood theologically; he seems to invite the people who are economically slaving away towards a higher truth of some sort, but then invites religious people back to this world. I do not think that he is claiming that Jesus' message was wrong, but that it was imperfect insofar as it had another world as its focus. I am not sure how historically knowledgeable he was about the Christian faith. If nothing else, I am sure he had read the bible.
Nato: To me it seems that there is something extra-Christian to it, though I may be wrong. Certainly, the years I spent as a Buddhist taught me a lot, even still it deeply influences how I interact with the world.
Glad to see that the suggestion has some appeal though. If I may ask a follow up question; what sort of relationship should (or would/could) there be between the transcended and the Christian?
I agree with Fraser- contrary to what many Christians would believe, Jesus's teachings were definitely not focused on 'another world'- Thoreau got that one wrong.
I would like to agree, but I'm not sure I do. Having just read the four gospels I can't help but see Jesus' teaching as being focused towards eternal life in Heaven with God.
Did I miss something? Should I be looking somewhere else? Was my translation that bent?
I'd say you- along with everyone else- have been conditioned to think that every time Jesus mentions 'the kingdom of heaven' he's talking about pie in the sky when you die, etc. I'm not so sure...
Jesus did indicate that there are eternal rewards for our earthly actions, but his teaching was very much focussed on what you should do to make a difference here and now. Heavenly rewards are not the point.
This might be a little demanding...
If I went through the Gospels again and marked down all the places where I feel that the teachings are directed at another world, would you (or anyone else) be willing to provide me with reasons to think otherwise?
Currently I think that what you are claiming ought to be true, but I seriously doubt it is. If you can convince me, you would make a part of me very happy indeed.
Better still, could any one explain to me exactly what Jesus’ teachings actually were? ((You could all take a lesson from Buddhism’s use of numbered bullet point lists.))
Post a Comment