“you wouldn’t understand church: you’re an atheist”
I hear that often… “well, you wouldn’t understand: you’re an atheist.” And, yeah, I get that kind of… but that doesn’t mean I’m not interested in understanding.
And if it (belief in God, the community of one’s church) is something you want to share with others, then why wouldn’t you want it to be easily understood?
When I posit that question, I’m told that I don’t understand because I’m not spiritual, i.e., not open to the mystery. And If it’s the mystery that makes it so wonderful, I get that, too.
But if that IS it–the mystery–then, it’s my opinion that people must, must, must stop treating it (belief, one’s church) as anything beyond the realm of the mysterious, and remember what it is: a matter of faith.
Too often, this leap of faith becomes for many a “leap of fact.” And it’s only that level of certainty I have trouble with.
Because as I see it, that kind of certainty in matters of faith is an extremely dangerous path, the kind that leads you to condemn others’ faiths as wrong, which can lead to fighting (as in the Mid-East), which can lead to people flying planes into places where I live.
And that is something I will never understand.
Thanks…
Matt Casper
Comment by: April Terry
1 06/12/07 10:59 AM | Comment Link |Matt,
I think it is wrong for folks to assume that because you are not a Christian you can’t understand a church experience. I think the responses you have received were knee-jerk reactions to seeing criticisms of their church.
You have every right to voice criticisms and indeed, some of us are very grateful for your comments.
I have always felt that if we are going to criticize something, we should do it in the spirit of trying to find solutions.
What I would like to know is if, during your time studying various churches, you have come up with any solutions to the problem of church not being “loving.”
I want to know how a “loving” church would feel to you–what it would be like. I want to know what a moving experience would be like for you.
I was raised outside the institutional church and because of that, I always feel incredibly uncomfortable with church. Because of that experience, I realize going into the church experience that I am not going to feel comfortable with it, since my experience of God has always been deeply personal. Therefore, my effort has always been to make any service that I officiate (I have a direct ministry) very personal to those receiving it.
What I want to know is if you had the chance to reconstruct the church experience and knew that you only had an hour or two of people’s time, how would you do it?
Comment by: Sam
2 06/12/07 2:08 PM | Comment Link |I just read the book ‘Jim and Casper Go To Church’. I am a person of faith, however, I agreed with most of your observations recorded in the book about the churches. You are absolutely correct that Faith is just that, faith. The Bible makes this point very clearly. We come to the “saving grace of Jesus Christ through faith”. The Bible is all about “believing”.
Comment by: Helen
3 06/13/07 6:42 AM | Comment Link |Matt, I think some of the Christians who say this to you are basing it on this Bible verse (1 Cor 2:14)
Comment by: Jim Henderson
4 06/13/07 6:37 PM | Comment Link |If this is true
Why then did Jesus say this about an ungodly (one might presume- even demonized) terrorist Roman soldier
“I have not found such great faith in ALL of Israel”
And please dont insult my intelligence with greek words/meanings etc -
Comment by: Matt Casper
5 06/14/07 9:43 AM | Comment Link |Jim made me wonder (as he does). Often, when people use the bible to explain why I–a non-believer–don’t understand, don’t know, can’t see, won’t hear, etc., etc., etc., it’s never the words of Jesus they use, but some other text, words not said by Jesus himself. Which begs the question… why is it called “Christianity?” Why not “Bible-anity?”
Comment by: David Griffin
6 06/14/07 3:56 PM | Comment Link |I would like to answer your question in the same spirit in which it was asked, namely pointing out that 1 Corinthians is in the new testament, which is devoted to the works of Christ and His teaching applied to the world, for the Christian, part and parcel, indeed the only summation of the Word of God. Now if you had a verse quoted to you by a Jewish person using the old testament, would you chastise them saying, “Why are you called Jewish and not a bible-anitist, or a Torahist, since that is what you are quoting to me?
Comment by: Matt Casper
7 06/14/07 5:08 PM | Comment Link |Hi David, thanks for posting.
So if what’s said there is more important than the all-inclusive langague Jesus seemed to prefer, why isn’t the religion called “Corinthianism?”
To me, if one is a follower of Jesus, it would be the words and ideas of Jesus that matter. Everything else is just the words and ideas of other men inspired by Jesus, which should not, in my opinion, carry the same weight.
Corinthians was written about 60 years after Jesus died, and is based on the opinions of Paul who wanted to correct some things he thought were wrong. So why should I hold the words in Corinthians in higher regard than I do the words of Jesus himself? Why–as a Christian, and not a Paulian–do you?
Comment by: April Terry
8 06/14/07 9:46 PM | Comment Link |Do we have to have a complete level of certainty in order to have faith? Some people will perhaps argue that we do, but I have chased faith for many years and what I think has made my faith greater is the ability to question my beliefs.
Questioning certainly hasn’t diminished it, but has indeed increased it tremendously. I think sometimes that the difference between the non-believer and the believer is the expectation of what level of certainty we should have.
Without a parting of the clouds and God’s voice penetrating from the midst of heaven itself, we have no scientific proof that God exists or doesn’t exist and even if the clouds were to part, I imagine that many great minds would question it saying that it was merely a group hallucination.
Therefore, faith must remain exactly what it is—a reaching toward that which is unknown or as the dictionary puts it “belief that is not based on proof.”
You have chosen to reach toward a faith of not believing in God, and while it is surely unfair of some of us to use circular reasoning against you by saying that you cannot understand because you are an atheist, you have put yourself in a position of criticizing the church’s methods of revealing itself, serving others, loving, and even worshipping God. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that you have ruffled the feathers of those who love their faith and are committed to it.
If someone were calling your atheism into question, they would perhaps be saying that there is no consolation in a belief of no God at all, and you could easily respond by saying that we could not understand it because we have faith in God.
It seems normal to me that since Atheism has no formal congregational aspect to it and no worship aspect to it (that I know of) that it would be incredibly strange to you. In fact, I would be surprised if you didn’t feel that way.
However, if you are questioning the methods of a congregation of believers, then you should be willing and able to answer why you don’t find a church loving, and what, in your opinion, would make a church more relevant to you.
It is a fair question because if your intent is merely to criticize then perhaps you are not as objective as one might have believed. If, however, your intent is to be objective and offer your personal insights as to what is relevant and meaningful in a worship experience, then you should be able to explain with a level of understanding what exactly, if anything, a church could do to make you feel comfortable, interested, and perhaps want to come back.
Comment by: Helen
9 06/15/07 5:47 AM | Comment Link |(Disclaimer: I may be being devil’s advocate here.)
Jim, you posted a quote about a man with faith. Faith is a gift of God, given by the Holy Spirit, so he clearly had the spirit and hence understanding according to the passage I quoted.
Anyway you seem to be relying on a group stereotype rather than looking at the individual when you assert the Roman was ungodly and a terrorist. Surely we should look at him as an individual instead of assuming a group stereotype must apply? (As Jesus did ;-) - look at him as an individual, I mean)
Also, how is it relevant to bring up a man with faith, when we are discussing Matt the atheist?
So, did I insult your intelligence? ;-) I didn’t refer to the Greek once!
Matt, Christians who have studied the Bible a lot are satisfied that Paul had the same understanding of the faith as Jesus and hence is qualified to interpret/elaborate on what Jesus said. Jesus told his followers they would have the Holy Spirit to remind them of everything he said and help them do greater things than this. He said they would have the keys to the kingdom. He empowered them to go do things in his name. I see nothing in Jesus’ words which implies he would have a problem with Paul continuing what he started - and part of that role would be correcting any misunderstanding of what Jesus wanted that had crept into the church. When Paul criticized something he was not changing the movement Jesus started; he was keeping it on track.
(And we still have Christians today who consider their prime mandate to be that guardian of the faith’ role. They spent a lot of time telling other Christians where they have got off track. In order to preserve the faith Jesus handed down)
David, I don’t actually think Jews quote their sacred writings like Christians do. They have a somewhat different approach. Have you ever had a Jew quote a Bible verse to you or was that an assumption?
Comment by: April Terry
10 06/15/07 7:54 AM | Comment Link |To add to what Helen stated above regarding the above comment by Jim, I would like to add that there is additional information on this event in Luke 7:3-5 that is little known. I just read it this morning.
“When the officer heard about Jesus, he sent some respected Jewish leaders to ask him to come and heal his slave.
And when they came to Jesus, they begged Him earnestly, saying that the one for whom He should do this was deserving,
for he loves our nation, and has built us a synagogue.”
So, clearly, by this verse, it appears that the Centurion was well-known and liked by the Jews and had built a synagogue for them, and that they actually advocated that he should be received by Jesus. That doesn’t seem to support the idea that he was someone who was ungodly, demonized, or a terrorist.
Comment by: Matt Casper
11 06/15/07 9:48 AM | Comment Link |Question about the bible: what makes it more valid than the Qu’ran, or the writings of Buddha, or anything written by men ever? Nothing but your own personal faith in it, right?
Comment by: Jim Henderson
12 06/15/07 11:08 AM | Comment Link |You can dress it up as much as you like - The Centurion was NOT saved or part of the faith community at least from a Jews perspective AND he was part of the military indutrial complex that held Israel captive AND he could have probably has Jesus killed if he has wanted to.
I am not saying what I believe. Im saying you cant have it both ways. If he was a man of faith then he was on his way to heaven if he wasnt then he is OUT plain and simple. At least thats what fundamentalist Christians have told me (aka Bible Believing)
Comment by: Helen
13 06/15/07 3:27 PM | Comment Link |Jim, April wasn’t dressing it up. She simply posted what the Bible passage says. If the Jewish leaders hated him or thought he was ungodly, why would they go to Jesus on his behalf?
Anyway, Jesus said he was a man of faith therefore he was on his way to heaven. End of story.
And yes, it was very radical of Jesus to say someone outside the Jewish faith community had more faith than all the insiders. :-)
Comment by: Priscilla
14 06/19/07 1:46 PM | Comment Link |I am SO LOVING this conversation! I’d like to comment on a couple postings, but am a little intimidated and hope I don’t prove myself a “wanna-be.”
Concerning Sam’s post of 6/12.
Eventually ‘believing’ becomes knowing as the Christ follower matures. Simply because one believes in something, does not make it true. Matt’s quote that April referred to on 6/15 says it all really “Too often, this leap of faith becomes for many a “leap of fact.” And it’s only that level of certainty I have trouble with.” For the sincere, humble Christ follower, faith eventually becomes fact when that person allows the Holy Spirit to cause them to experience truth according to God, not man.
I have a question for Matt. The question is not an attempt to prosiltize (sp?), but to get a better idea of where you are at. IF there is a God to know personally, do you want to know that God? I imagine Jim has asked such a question of you.
Now a personal request: if I am indeed a “wanna-be” participant, could someone kindly let me know? Thanks.
Comment by: Matt Casper
15 06/19/07 4:39 PM | Comment Link |Priscilla: thanks for joining–there are no wanna-be’s here…
You say that as the believer matures believing becomes knowing, but I have to dispute that. Just as a lie told often enough does not (or rather, SHOULD not) become the truth, a belief practiced faithfully does not become anything other than a belief.
As far as I have seen, no new empirical evidence is provided along the way. That’s not to say belief doesn’t become stronger, but it is to say that faith can never become fact.
I think this because according to what I’ve seen faith is a cultural phenomenon. Were you born in the rainforests of the Amazon Basin, you’d worship a whole different set of gods. Were you born in Greece, circa 1000 B.C., you’d be asking me if I’d like to know Zeus rather than the god of Abraham worshipped today.
You also mention that for “the sincere, humble Christ follower, faith eventually becomes fact…” My question to you is this: how sincere and humble can a person be when they presume their personal beliefs to be universal truths?
Comment by: Helen
16 06/19/07 5:56 PM | Comment Link |Priscilla, thanks for joining the conversation.
I understand if you are saying that God’s faithfulness over a period of time has strengthened your faith. But it’s still faith isn’t it? If Christians could be so sure that faith completely became fact, no faith would be needed. Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness - if it was fact, he would not have had to believe and if it was fact God wouldn’t have had anything to give him credit for.