
Essay donated by James B. Gray, a visitor to this site
Why I am not a Christian

Sponsored link.

G. K. Chesterton [1874 – 1936] is famous for having stated in
his 1910 What’s Wrong with the World (Chapter V of Part One): "The
Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found
difficult and left untried." And (Chapter VI of Part One): "Men have not got
tired of Christianity; they have never found enough Christianity to get tired
of."
I will forgive Chesterton for using "men" rather than
"people," given that political correctness was not in vogue in 1910. However,
his criticism of Christianity proceeded from an incorrect assumption—that
Christianity developed from Jesus’ ministry, as recorded in the
canonical gospels. What apparently threw Chesterton "off the track" in his
thinking here was his assumption that just because Christianity adopted certain
gospels as part of its canon, that it therefore based its religion on those
gospels primarily.
Although it would be foolish to deny that Christianity has
no dependence on the four gospels included in its "New Testament," it is
clear that Christianity:
-
has more dependence on certain portions of those gospels
than other portions (i.e., those that do not refer to Jesus'
ministry),
-
draws much more from Paul’s letters than, e.g., the book
of James, and
-
was strongly influenced in its development (theology in
particular) by the pagan Mysteries of the time.
Indeed, one could argue that had it not done the latter, it
would not have been very attractive to "Gentiles" and therefore would not have
survived beyond, say, the third century CE. (Although we should not forget that
Christianity’s success perhaps owes even more to Constantine’s efforts, and the
fact that Theodosius made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire
in 380 CE. It appears that by 250 CE only about 2% of those in the Roman Empire
were members of Jesus groups, with only some of them being Christians—so that if
people in the Empire had not been forced to adopt the religion, numbers would
have remained small.)
A fact which may have eluded Chesterton is that contrary to
what Christians are typically taught, a number of "Jesus groups" developed after
Jesus' death, not just one. It’s not that Christianity has denied this fact;
but what it has always contended is that Christianity was the "true" such group,
with all other ones being "false"—"heretical," in fact. That is, Christianity
has eschewed objectivity—honesty!—on this matter in favor of a (distorted)
version of the truth that supports its own claim to a genetic
relationship to . . . . . To what? Interestingly, the claim is not so much to a
genetic relationship to Jesus' ministry but, rather, to apostolic
leadership. That is, Christianity has argued that Jesus assigned reins of
authority to Peter, and that this thread of leadership authority has been
passed down through the centuries to today (currently residing in the Roman
Catholic pope).
The problem with this line of reasoning is not only that, as
the book of Acts and letters of Paul (books in their canon!) make clear,
after Jesus' death his brother James became leader of the Jesus group in
Jerusalem; in addition, it is known from other sources that leadership of that
group continued in Jesus' family for several decades. The second problem with
this line of reasoning is that it asserts that Jesus appointed someone (Peter)
to assume leadership after his death, and instructed that person to follow suit
before he died.—assertions that simply lack empirical support, whether in
the New Testament or elsewhere.
Our knowledge about early Jesus groups is limited—and,
ironically, has been obtained primarily from the works of early heresiologists!—the
works of the "heretics" themselves having, for the most part, been destroyed by
Christians. And, unfortunately, discussions of these groups and their leaders
have tended to "play it safe" by taking a thematic approach (e.g., Bart Ehrman’s
recent book "Lost Christianities" 1), rather than an historical one. Still, it is clear that a diversity
of Jesus groups existed in the early years after Jesus' death—none of them
thinking of themselves as heretical! Indeed, were a competent history written of
the Jesus groups in the first century CE (certainly none exists yet!), it might
even point out that Christianity does not even have a genetic relationship with
Jesus' ministry—or even the work of one of Jesus' disciples! (Of course, it’s
even conceivable that it might argue that the story of 12 disciples is a fiction
lacking in hard empirical support.)
We can, though, state unequivocally that of the various Jesus
groups that developed after Jesus' death, the only one that became "successful"
was Christianity. I suppose that one could argue that this represents "survival
of the fittest"—the phrase introduced by Herbert Spencer, and adopted by Charles
Darwin in the fifth edition of his Origin of Species. But such a
conclusion would not be complimentary to Christianity—quite the contrary, in
fact! For the Jesus group that became (morphed into, Burton Mack has argued)
Christianity developed into a religion about Jesus, fooling
many—including Chesterton, evidently—that it was the religion of Jesus.
Because "religion of Jesus" and "religion about
Jesus" both contain the words "Jesus" and "religion," we are easily led to
believe that the one has virtually the same meaning as the other. But how
untrue!! Whereas a religion of Jesus, by definition, strives to
continue the religion of Jesus (e.g., by asking "If Christ Came to Chicago,"
2 and then using the answer as its basis), a religion about Jesus makes a
mockery of Jesus' religion by basically ignoring it. But doing so in a
subtle way, so as to give the impression that it is actually the religion
of Jesus.
Put another way, a religion that strives to be a religion
of Jesus will be one whose orientation is to orthopraxy, and one
which perceives Jesus in the context of his Judaism and its scriptures. A
religion that is about Jesus, however, will have an orientation to
orthodoxy.
And given the context within which Christianity developed (i.e., a society
within which many were associated with pagan Mysteries), it is not in the least
surprising that much of Christian theology bears a strong resemblance to the
myths of those older religions.
As to the question of why Christianity succeeded (and other
Jesus groups died), the most important reason might very well be that
such a religion could be useful to the State (the reason Christianity
promoted the religion). And that as the nature of the elite has changed over
time, Christianity could easily adapt to the then-current elite’s needs—so that
now it functions to serve the interests of a capitalist elite. Certainly those
current Christian leaders who preach a "prosperity" gospel are functioning in
this way: on the one hand, they pose no threat to the current system; on the
other, the gospel they preach is the virtual opposite of that taught by
Jesus—yet they claim to be "preachers of the gospel"! How audacious! And how
blasphemous! Evidently they have not read Matthew 25—so that they are not aware
of the fate that Jesus promised to people of their ilk.
No generic term exists for a religion of Jesus, but let me
suggest here "Jesuanism." And the first point I would make about Jesuanism is
that one should not think of it as unitary: the canonical gospels do not paint a
consistent picture of Jesus' ministry—and the non-canonical gospels muddy the
waters even further. All that can be said regarding Jesuanism is that it strives
to continue the religion of Jesus, as interpreted variously. The NeWFism
advocated in my article on this site ("Worship: An exercise in revisioning")
offers one version of Jesuanism, but does not pretend to be the only version.
I can—and do!—align myself with NeWFism—with Jesuanism in
general—not only because I believe it to be Biblical, but believe it to be
right: my instincts tell me that this is the proper basis for a
religion—that it is, in fact, a religion rooted in human nature.
Christianity, on the other hand, has little claim to be a Biblical religion,
being, rather, an ideology that performs a certain societal function. Given its
attachment to the social order—and that order’s current drift—it is, in fact,
dangerous to be a Christian. Not in that it is likely to land one in jail
but, rather, that Christians, via their unseemly "contribution" to
global
warming, may become primarily responsible for humankind’s demise as a species,
should that occur
Bertrand Russell had his reasons for declaring himself a non-Christian. I
have my own—and would that others would share that viewpoint. After all, I have
children and grandchildren, and would like some assurance that they will have a
future! At present, it is rather difficult to be optimistic on that score.

Reference used:
-
Bart D. Ehrman, "Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the
Faiths We Never Knew," Oxford University Press, (2005).
Read
reviews or order this book safely from Amazon.com online book store
- This is a reference to William T. Stead's book ""If Christ Came to
Chicago: ! A plea for the union of all who love in the service of all who
suffer," (1894)
