Video
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feed
"Christianity" not necessary when you have Christ
Author Anne Rice said last week that she was 'quitting Christianity:' The once-lapsed Catholic wrote that she was could no longer accept her religion's teachings on homosexuality, feminism, politics and birth control.
"In the name of Christ, I quit Christianity and being Christian," Rice announced on her Facebook page.
Can you leave Christianity and keep Christ? Can you be spiritual without being religious?
A long-cherished "advice" among Friends (Quakers) goes like this: "Remember that Christianity is not a notion but a way." Unfortunately, too many Christians - among them many Friends - are caught up in "notionalism," equating faithful Christianity with particular notions about proper dogmas, doctrines, creeds, formulas, rituals, and social norms. So much of what we understand to be "Christianity" today is the construct of theological, political, and social battles over the centuries. There is no time in this brief response to go into the long history of Church councils that hammered out labyrinthine explanations of the Trinity, of the nature of Christ, and of who is "in" and who is "out." Indeed, even if one did say that "Christianity" is necessary for one to be a follower of Christ, then we would still be left with the question of "which Christianity"?!
Nonconformist and radical reform traditions such as Friends have sought in their beginnings to bypass the accretions of the ages and return to "basic Christianity," the faith of the first disciples - what some would call "Gospel Christianity." The trouble is, the Christian scriptures themselves, describing the nature of that earliest form of the faith, are already products of the development of a "Church," of a set of dogmas and practices that developed in the decades after Jesus walked the earth. Quakers have historically sought to address this problem by appealing to the "Spirit of Christ" directly. Without creed, an ordained clergy, or a ritual other than centered, expectant waiting on the Spirit of Christ in worship, Friends appeal to their Inward Teacher, the Real Presence within, to Jesus Christ in all offices of prophet, priest, redeemer, saviour, and Lord.
If this Real Presence is, indeed, available here and now, radically apocalypic in the sense of "unveiling" truth to the seeker, then, indeed, no further "notions" are necessary; the very author of the script of what it means to be a faithful follower is on the stage! In that sense, then, "Christianity" is not necessary - we have Christ. "Religion" is not necessary, we have the Spirit.
However, our experience also tells us that there are other "voices" within us; other "notions" that may lead us astray - or worse! Thus, it is beneficial to discern with others what the Spirit of Christ is saying to us. Is it consistent with how Christ has been revealed in the past - in scripture, in the experience of Friends, in the experience of the broader Christian community? Is there an integrity to the revelation? I don't doubt that Anne Rice can have Christ without "Christianity," but my guess is that she still talks with others who are trying their darndest to be faithful and, like two pilgrims trying to find their way through the forest with their lanterns, combine their lights better to illumine their path.
I, too, am often disgusted by institutional religion. But I find that seeking out a community of the faithful, also seeking to root themselves in something that is vital and real (see Jonathan Wilson-Hartgrove's excellent new book "Stability"), and sharing our experience of Christ's leading, is beneficial. Often for me that community doesn't look much like "organized Christianity," but it is important to me in helping me keep on a straighter path than I might follow by myself. Another old Quaker advice is this, "We can worship alone, but when we join with others in expectant waiting we may discover a deeper sense of God's presence."
I have a "notion" that Anne Rice isn't "going it alone," but that she has had it with institutions that have replaced the Real Spirit of Christ with trappings of power and privilege and the heavy yoke of a creedalism that burdens one generation with the often discredited truth of previous ones. And if she is anything like the many students with whom I work and learn - who would describe themselves as deeply spiritual but not religious in the conventional sense - then she is in good company. Let's just hope they don't join together, form a "Church," and develop a dogma that, itself, will one day run counter to the fresh springs of the Spirit of Christ.
By
Max Carter
|
August 2, 2010; 2:57 PM ET
Save & Share:
Previous: Combat spiritual self-indulgence |
Next: No two Christians are alike
Posted by: qspirit | August 5, 2010 9:06 AM
Report Offensive Comment
If there is a basic dishonesty about most religion it is one in which others--especially atheists--are complicit. That amounts to a denial that theology and philosophy (as markers for "religious" versus "secular") use the same means to discern "truth." They do use the same means, and respect the same ultimate authority: human reason.
Theologies certainly proceed from different premises but reason, from those premises, they do.
Friend Carter's point, it seems to me, is that rational religion--while the ark that holds all orthodoxies--are not the only kind of religion.
Relatively few in number, surely, there are nonetheless some in all traditions (and outside them all) who do not turn to scripture, dogma or creeds to ask, to figure out or to be told what is asked of them in relation to living out the human moral consensus epitomized in the Golden Rule.
Some have learned to listen for and recognize the "voice"--wherever they think it comes from--of that consensus and aspire to heed that voice in their lives.
In contrast to that, rational religions tell us to reason our way from their collected notions about the origin, character, nature and plans of whatever deity/non diety they claim to be "in charge" to get us to moral and ethical rationalizations that--surprise, surprise--all tend to validate what we already are are and what we want to do to others that make us feel safe.
The difference is between those to whom "revelation" means what "stands to reason" or "makes sense" and those to whom it means the day by day "listening" and heeding the direct guidance of Christ/Spirit/God...whatever one wants or is led to call it.
Be still and know, it is written, that I am God.
That, it sounds to me, is what it means to say that one can ditch the "Christianity" and live in Christ.
Timothy Travis
Posted by: qspirit | August 5, 2010 9:05 AM
Report Offensive Comment
William Stringfellow once defined "Christ" as "God at work in us." So every human being on Earth must certainly have that, and we're all far from being entirely "Christian", whatever that means...
But how many people, including Christians, truly understand the life of Jesus: what he intended, what he meant by his words, why they led to his death? Necessary or not, aren't these matters worth prayer and study?
Posted by: treegestalt | August 4, 2010 2:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Sounds like what you're saying is that Rice hasn't really dumped true Christianity so much as she has dumped Catholicism?
There's been a lot of praise in the news concerning Rice's choice to leave the Christian religion. Much of it seems to be aimed at the fact that the "institutional church" which Rice departs is the Catholic Church. Otherwise I doubt there would be much at all said if the news had been "Rice leaves mainline Protestantism," etc.
I'd like to offer another possibility: claiming Christ but not religion is a favorite assertion of unchurched or stay-at-home "Christians." I grew up in a household where I heard the claim to Christ but not the "religion" of Christianity practically every day. I know there were two things at least driving the claim to Christ but not religion: the fear of making a clean break, and a basic dishonesty with oneself about religion.
While I don't claim to know how Rice's books sales have been since she embraced Catholicism, she certainly now has the world's attention now and is in a good position to make a few bucks on the next book. Meanwhile the press and its hoard of anti-Catholics may have their field day.
Posted by: DonJuan59 | August 2, 2010 11:57 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
If there is a basic dishonesty about most religion it is one in which others--especially atheists--are complicit. That amounts to a denial that theology and philosophy (as markers for "religious" versus "secular") use the same means to discern "truth." They do use the same means, and respect the same ultimate authority: human reason.
Theologies certainly proceed from different premises but reason, from those premises, they do.
Friend Carter's point, it seems to me, is that rational religion--while the ark that holds all orthodoxies--are not the only kind of religion.
Relatively few in number, surely, there are nonetheless some in all traditions (and outside them all) who do not turn to scripture, dogma or creeds to ask, to figure out or to be told what is asked of them in relation to living out the human moral consensus epitomized in the Golden Rule.
Some have learned to listen for and recognize the "voice"--wherever they think it comes from--of that consensus and aspire to heed that voice in their lives.
In contrast to that, rational religions tell us to reason our way from their collected notions about the origin, character, nature and plans of whatever deity/non diety they claim to be "in charge" to get us to moral and ethical rationalizations that--surprise, surprise--all tend to validate what we already are are and what we want to do to others that make us feel safe.
The difference is between those to whom "revelation" means what "stands to reason" or "makes sense" and those to whom it means the day by day "listening" and heeding the direct guidance of Christ/Spirit/God...whatever one wants or is led to call it.
Be still and know, it is written, that I am God.
That, it sounds to me, is what it means to say that one can ditch the "Christianity" and live in Christ.
Timothy Travis