In either my Senior year in high school, or my Freshman year in college, one of my teachers had the class read "Why I Am Not a Christian," a written version of a lecture Bertrand Russell gave in 1927. Through the years, I hadn't remembered anything about the essay except its name. At the time, however, I remember that it seemed like pretty dangerous reading. Not as taboo as "Lady Chatterley's Lover" was in the late 1950s, maybe, but it was certainly on a par with reading such subversive literature as "Das Kapital" or "Mein Kampf." Come to think of it, it was probably worse than all of those. Reading about Socialism, Communism, Fascism (and Sex) was un-American (or just naughty); reading about not being a Christian was, well -- NOT CHRISTIAN. And even though most of us in the class were probably not Christians [Capital "C"], we lived in mid-20th Century America, so we were mostly christians (lower case). Asking a student to read such an essay was as bad as subjecting today's Christian kids to "Harry Potter." (I wonder if that teacher got fired?)
I found Bertrand Russell's essay on the Internet the other day (what is the world coming to?) and read it for the first time in 55 years or so. Guess what? It's not bad; in fact, he makes some points well worth considering today, and not just for their religious implications.
To quote a little of Russell's
introduction:
"Perhaps it would be as well, first of all, to try to
make out what one means by the word Christian. It is used
these days in a very loose sense by a great many people. Some
people mean no more by it than a person who attempts to live a
good life... (but) I think that you must have a certain
amount of definite belief before you have a right to call yourself
a Christian. The word does not have quite such a full-blooded
meaning now as it had in the times of St. Augustine and St. Thomas
Aquinas. In those days, if a man said he was a Christian it was
known what he meant. You accepted a whole collection of creeds
which were set out with great precision, and every single syllable
of those creeds you believed with the whole strength of your convictions.
Nowadays it is not quite that."
Russell went on to define what he thought were the basic tenets of Christianity -- what he thought people had to subscribe to in order to legitimately call themselves Christians. I doubt any Christian (Capital "C" or not) would accept his definition wholly, but at least he made an attempt to explain what he thought Christians thought (something a lot of other writers and talkers -- Christian and non-Christian -- might emulate). Basically, it came down to two premises: to be a Christian one had to believe in God and immortality, and one had to believe "that Christ was, if not divine, at least the best and wisest of men."
I won't dwell on whether or not
there is "a God." Russell used all the arguments current
then and now to rule against there being a supreme being, all
of which boil down to: if God created everything, who created
God? Good question, and no more answerable than this one: where
did the tiny speck of matter come from that caused the Big Bang
that created "everything?" Since there is nothing I
as a believer in God can say to you to prove my belief or disprove
yours, and as there is nothing you can say to me to disprove my
belief or prove yours, let's call it a draw. Interestingly, Russell
said the same thing (although he didn't seem to realize it was
the answer to both his question and my rebuttal question):
"It is exactly of the same nature as the Hindu's view,
that the world rested upon an elephant and the elephant rested
upon a tortoise; and when they said, 'How about the tortoise?'
the Indian said, 'Suppose we change the subject?'"
"Changing the subject" to Jesus, we still have a basic communication problem because his "divinity" is not open to what one might call "scientific discussion." Belief in him as a personification of "God" is strictly a matter of faith, and can't be proven or disproven in this life. Russell didn't believe in him, not even as a historical figure, let alone "divine." But Christians do. Proof, one way or another? None, really. So, again, let's "change the subject."
Why wasn't Bertrand Russell a Christian? That isn't really clear in the essay. Of course, not believing in a God makes it hard to take a second step toward any faith or religion, but it goes beyond that. I think most of Russell's complaints about Christianity were not about CHRISTianity (with CHRIST emphasized), but were criticisms of religion and about what has been done to the message of Christ over the years. In essence, he blamed God and Jesus (as did Sam Harris in his recent book, "The End of Faith") for things like pedophile priests, the Crusades, nuns who are mean to kids in school, pastors who don't shake hands with you after a church service, murderers of doctors who perform abortions, strictures against birth control, and homophobia. Many things have been done "in the name of" God or Jesus, but remember: if I do something "in your name" that you don't want me to do, and that you never gave any indication that you might want me to do, you're not to blame. I am.
You'll find a lot of things in Christianity ("Christ" not emphasized) that you won't find in the Bible. There are thousands of rules, regulations, practices, interpretations, and "illuminations" that Christian groups have put upon themselves that have no basis in the Bible -- and regularly run contrary to its words. It seems that Mankind has never hesitated to start a new "religion" on the basis of a word, a phrase, a thought, a dream, or a self-serving idea. That's RELIGION, but it often has nothing to do with Jesus. What the Bible does contain are words that were allegedly spoken by Jesus (I say "alleged" because, again, nobody can prove a particular person said them), and that Russell felt should be the basis for Christian belief and action. He felt they should be, but saw little evidence that they were. He wrote:
"I think that there are a good many points upon which I agree with Christ a great deal more than the professing Christians do. I do not know that I could go with Him all the way, but I could go with Him much further than most professing Christians can."
Quite an indictment: a non-Christian being more "christian" than Christians? He gives examples: "You will remember that He said, 'Resist not evil; but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.' This is not a new precept or a new principle. It was used by Lao-tse and Buddha some 500 or 600 years before Christ, but it is not a principle which as a matter of fact Christians accept. I have no doubt that the present prime minister, for instance, is a most sincere Christian, but I should not advise any of you to go and smite him on one cheek. I think you might find that he thought this text was intended in a figurative sense."
A little tongue in cheek, perhaps, but did Jesus really mean it, or was this "figurative?" Another example: "There is another point which I consider excellent. You will remember that Christ said, 'Judge not lest ye be judged.' That principle I do not think you would find was popular in the law courts of Christian countries... Then Christ says, 'Give to him that asketh of thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.' That is a very good principle... (but) I cannot help observing that the last general election was fought on the question of how desirable it was to turn away from him that would borrow of thee, so that one must assume that the Liberals and Conservatives of this country are composed of people who do not agree with the teachings of Christ, because they certainly did most emphatically turn away on that occasion."
One more Russell example: "Then
there is one other maxim of Christ which I think has a good deal
in it, but I do not find that it is very popular among some of
our Christian friends. He says, 'If thou wilt be perfect, go and
sell that which thou hast, and give to the poor.' That is a very
excellent maxim, but, as I say, it is not much practiced. All
these, I think, are good maxims, although they are a little difficult
to live up to. I do not profess to live up to them myself; but
then, after all, IT IS NOT QUITE THE SAME THING AS FOR A CHRISTIAN
(my emphasis added)."
* * *
I agree with Bertrand Russell: although Jesus' principles are
hard to live up to - certainly not completely achievable in this
life - shouldn't a person who claims to be a Christian - a disciple
of Christ - show some "christian" attributes to the
world? I've known people whose lives strongly follow the teachings
of Jesus; curiously, almost none of them call themselves Christians,
and many would be offended if you tried to label them as such
in the world of today. To those who do not consider themselves
Christians, today's Christians do not seem like a group one wants
to emulate: they seem mean-spirited, bigoted, hypocritical, uninformed,
disinterested in the environment and their fellow humans, actively
trying to force their beliefs on the rest of us - in short, they
seem about as unJesuslike as can be imagined. Ask about it, and
Christians protest that they're "not like that," but
the evidence is blatantly obvious. Some say "we're not ALL
like that," which seems to be an acknowledgment that "some
Christians" are "like that," and no matter how
unCHRISTian they might seem, they are still recognized as Christians
by other Christians.
During the many years I attended church, taught Sunday school,
sang gospel songs, and occasionally preached a sermon, I was aware
that many of those in the congregation acted like uneducated yokels.
Doctrine was occasionally strange: the denominations I was involved
with didn't allow their sex lives and family planning to be dictated
by some old man in Europe, but we did have traveling evangelists
who claimed either (a) dinosaur bones did not exist, or (b) if
they existed the Devil put them there to make Christians disbelieve
their Bibles. We had a pastor who, when a young man got a speeding
ticket while trying not to be late for church, opined that Satan
was working through the police force to impede God's work. Despite
that kind of nonsense, I stuck it out - and generally enjoyed
it - because I felt that most of the people attending church were
truly good-hearted and really wanted to live as CHRISTians. That
has all changed in the last 30 years, and if there still are CHRISTians
out there they are staying well hidden.
And here - finally! - I come to
the point I wanted to make. Bertrand Russell probably would never
have "become" a Christian, because he didn't believe
in religion in any form. But he had another problem: although
he was interested; was well-read in the Bible; and was willing
to rationally analyze all the information at hand, he failed to
find a real IDENTITY for Christianity. He read the words attributed
to Jesus, looked at the Christians around him, and could find
no meeting ground. If Christianity had a point, he couldn't find
it. In the current Christian climate, in which it seems you can
be as unCHRISTian as you please as long as you say pious things,
I fear there are more and more Bertrand Russells being created
every day.
Words matter. Actions matter. IDENTITY is important. If there
are an "Jesus people" out there, I urge you to identify
yourselves - to separate yourselves from those who claim an allegiance
to Christ, but act in opposition to almost all his words. If your
faith is to have any value in this world, you need to protect
it and clearly proclaim it. Whatever influence your beliefs and
values might have is being eroded through loss of identity, by
the stealing of your claim to CHRISTness.
And that gives me my segue to politics, because so many Christians
are also identifying themselves with the so-called "tea party"
movement in the United States. Some claim to be in these groups
because they want to rescue our country, and turn it back in the
proper direction. That may be, but the face presented to the world
is not one of rational thought and planning for a better America.
Do you really want us to be "saved" by mobs waving signs
(all seen recently at "tea party" gatherings) that say
of the President: "Speak for yourself, Obama! We are a Christian
Nation!" and "Hitler gave good speeches, too!"
Of gays: "Throw Barney Frank under the bus!" Of idealogy:
"Communists are Democrats in a hurry" and "Obammunism:
Slavery you can believe in." Of the way to change: "Clinging
to my God, my guns, my money!" and "Rise up - reload
- revolt." You have to clearly separate yourself from the
hateful, irrational gangs, and clearly IDENTIFY yourselves. This
is not a case of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."
You will either help the crazies win, or they will cause you to
lose all credibility.
In the end, all we really have
is our IDENTITY.