Home » Featured, story & idea

Spiritually Homeless

Submitted by Mark Van Steenwyk on March 4, 2009 – 7:17 pmView Comments
Print This Post

Editor’s note: This marks the first of many (we hope) letters to the editor. The sorts of questions raised by readers are often more interesting than the sort of tripe we usually publish. :) If you would like to send a letter to Mark, please contact us and a response may be published along with the letter.

dearmark I found your site awhile ago and I am intrigued. On Ash Wednesday, I sit here in my predicament, which is that I was raised Catholic but I do not currently believe in Jesus– I haven’t believed for some years now. And even when I was Catholic, I still didn’t quite jive with Jesus– it was always Mary whom I prayed to. I have some questions which maybe you can answer.

Christians believe that God sent Jesus, his only son, to us to cleanse us of the stain of original sin. The common line I hear people say is “God loved us so much he sent his only son to die.”

First of all, this assumes that God does not show a sufficient amount of love in other religions.I think God does show enough love for us through other religions. I don’t believe in original sin. I struggle sometimes even with the idea that we have free will. I just don’t like the idea of God having children, I think its weird at best. And Jesus’s suffering is nothing compared to much of the suffering that has happened yesterday and is happening today.

Basically I believe in only one God, but I don’t think Jesus was his son, I think Jesus was a radical prophet. I have read material, including that on your site, which rehabilitates his image and brings it closer to who he might have actually been. But I still don’t have faith in him. I feel sort of spiritually homeless. I have tried Buddhism but it’s a little too abstract and ethereal for me. I am not about to convert to Judaism, as I don’t agree with their premise that they are the “chosen” people. I only believe in one God so I can’t be Hindu or Pagan.

I am still culturally Catholic– my family still practices Lent and celebrates all the holidays– Maybe that’s why I am writing you today, because it is on the holidays that I feel so conflicted, wishing that I actually believed in what I am celebrating. Any response from you is appreciated. Have a nice Ash Wednesday.

Best,

Emily


Dear Emily,

Thank you for your honest and thought-provoking email. It challenges the conventional wisdom about a number of issues (like the divinity of Jesus, original sin, the uniqueness of Christianity, free will, and human suffering). These issues is so profound that dozens and dozens have been written addressing each. Now I find myself needing to address them in a single article. ;)

It is impossible for me to write about these things in a way that is comprehensive and satisfactory. However, my hope is that I (or one of our many esteemed readers or contributors) can at least suggest some ways of looking at these matters that will help you on your journey. After all, the entire direction of one’s life can change with a single word, yet sometimes and ocean of words can crash against a life and affect no change whatsoever. So I offer these humble words in hopes that they assist you in at least some small way to come to a place where you no longer spiritually homeless.

Your questions hinge on this man named Jesus…a Jesus you were taught to love and worship. You find yourself living in the rhythm of that worship (referring to yourself as a “cultural catholic”) but find yourself at conflict. You don’t actually believe in these rhythms of worship, nor do you believe in their object of worship: Jesus Christ.

Or do you? You believe in the ideals and way of life of a radical prophet named Jesus. Perhaps you believe if everyone were like Jesus the world would be a far better place. That isn’t such a bad place to find one’s self.
After all, the disciples didn’t believe in Jesus’ divinity…at least not at first. They followed him for three years, hearing every word and seeing every miracle (if you believe the stories…which I do). Through it all, we never get the sense that they thought he was divine. That came later. We’re not even sure whether or not all of the writers of the New Testament believed in his divinity…at least not in the way that modern Catholics (and Protestands and Orthodox folks) think about the divinity of Christ.

Nor do we really have a strong development of the idea of original sin (which was more of an idea from Augustine than an idea from the New Testament). Personally, I look at the story of Adam and Eve as a sort of parable that explains the human condition. I also believe it is simply the human condition to be incomplete. We, in our incompleteness and fragility sin. There is no way around it. I don’t believe we are “stained” with original sin. Rather, I believe that all human beings are incomplete, immature, and broken. Therefore, our big need isn’t the need to be “cleansed” from “original sin” by the perfect God-man. Rather, our need is to find wholeness and completion in the way of Jesus.

None of this is to say that sin is a small issue. Nor is it to say that Jesus isn’t God. I believe that Jesus is God. In fact, even if I were convinced that there was no God, I’d still follow Jesus. Jesus does more than show us who God is, he also shows us how to be human. I believe that Jesus, more than any other human being, shows us the way of love. To be honest, this does imply that I think other religious systems are inferior in this regard.

But that isn’t to say that other religions are entirely false. In fact, some religious expressions are actually truer (it seems to me) than many Christian expressions. In fact, I believe that most Christianity, as it is currently understood and expressed, needs to be subverted and resisted. Much of Christianity is interested in thought-dominance. It seeks to assert core unassailable truths that cannot be questioned. It sees the WAY of Jesus…the way to love and lay down one’s life and to worship God in spirit and truth as secondary to a set of beliefs or routines.

In this way, I actually believe (and I hope nobody misunderstands me here) that it is more important to be a Buddhist follower of Jesus or a Catholic follower of Jesus or even an atheist follower of Jesus than it is to be some abstract thing called a “Christian.” After all, the disciples followed Jesus for years before they made up their minds about doctrine. Doctrine comes after discipleship, not before.

And this way of discipleship leads to a cross. The Cross of Christ isn’t remarkable primarily because it is that instrument by which God removed a mystical stain (like some divine mop) but the place in which Jesus lay down his life in a perfect act of love. The profundity of the Cross isn’t tied up in the amount of Jesus’ suffering, but in the depth of Jesus’ love. He was so in love with his people that he turned the other cheek in his crucifixion. On the cross, Jesus entered into the most violent place of Empire and subverted it through an act of political jujitsu.

http://www.jesusmanifesto.com/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/digg_32.png http://www.jesusmanifesto.com/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/reddit_32.png http://www.jesusmanifesto.com/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/stumbleupon_32.png http://www.jesusmanifesto.com/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/delicious_32.png http://www.jesusmanifesto.com/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/google_32.png http://www.jesusmanifesto.com/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/facebook_32.png http://www.jesusmanifesto.com/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/twitter_32.png

About Mark Van Steenwyk

Mark Van Steenwyk is a member of Missio Dei. He is a speaker, writer, educator, and grassroots organizer. With the support of the Central Plains Mennonite Conference, he travels to radical and intentional communities around the country to help network and offer support.

  • pete
    I'm sorry. I meant to direct that to Emily M. who said:

    "I can quite easily believe in Jesus, and I can quite easily believe in God, but I find myself having a hard time believe in them both simultaneously."
  • Emily
    Pete, you didn't hear me.

    I said I believe in Jesus, and I believe in God, I just don't believe that Jesus is God. I am not going to believe by reading the bible. I don't let people tell me what to do, or what is right or wrong. I will only believe in Jesus if/when he reveals himself to me as God-- I have to feel it in my bones. I choose to be honest with myself and others rather than live a lie.
  • pete
    Emily,

    Since you are having trouble believing in both Jesus and God I would commend you to a study of the Gospel's and what Christ said. I don't have an answer for you, but I do know that Jesus said that if we'd seen him we've seen the father:

    John 14
    1 “Let not your heart be troubled; you believe in God, believe also in Me. 2 In My Father’s house are many mansions; if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also. 4 And where I go you know, and the way you know.”
    5 Thomas said to Him, “Lord, we do not know where You are going, and how can we know the way?”
    6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
    7 “If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; and from now on you know Him and have seen Him.”
    8 Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us.”
    9 Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works. 11 Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me, or else believe Me for the sake of the works themselves.
    12 “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do he will do also; and greater works than these he will do, because I go to My Father. 13 And whatever you ask in My name, that I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 If you ask anything in My name, I will do it.
    15 “If you love Me, keep My commandments. 16 And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you. 18 I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.
  • Emily
    Hi everybody,

    first, I'd like to thank those, including Maria Kirby, who wrote back in response to my question. I now have a somewhat clearer idea of what Jesus meant when he said turn the other cheek. I have a related question: Doesn't Jesus contradict himself in the bible when he teaches about nonviolence and at the same time tells us he has come not to bring peace, but to bring the sword and divide people? What exactly did he mean by that anyway?
  • I've taken my recent comment, gussied it up a bit, and am publishing it as an article...
  • The other day I was in a leftist bookshop and found a book claiming that nonviolence is a tool of Empire. In other words, they believed that pacifism and nonviolence simply allow aggressors to keep on aggressing. Whereas folks like Mark Kurlansky (who wrote a book called Nonviolence: The History of a Dangerous Idea that is a MUST READ for those that feel nonviolence is impotent) claim that nonviolence is a very powerful and dangerous force.

    Who's right? Does embracing nonviolence turn one into a doormat or is it a powerful way of challenging one's enemy while (potentially) showing love for them at the same time?

    Oppressors (everyone form slave owners to bullies at Catholic schools) have told the oppressed to "turn the other cheek" in order to keep them in their place. This sort of passive pacifism does not, I believe, properly reflect Jesus' teaching.

    Jesus told the oppressed to turn the other cheek as an act of positive assertion, as an act of defiant self-worth, but also as an act of love. This sort of nonviolence--the active sort of Jesus and the early Anabaptists and King and Gandhi and the Christian Peacemaker Teams--is active and subversive. It isn't docile submission to abuse. It is submissive insofar as it doesn't seek revenge or desire to set one's self up as the oppressor. Rather, it seeks liberation for both oppressed and oppressor.

    I believe we have every right to defend ourselves, but not if that self-defense is violent to the assailant. Violence can be verbal (seeking to destroy with words) or physical (seeking to do someone bodily harm). I realize that it isn't always easy to tell when an act is violent and I even recognize that there is even a time and a place for the use of non-lethal force.

    All of this is to say that nonviolence is more than being passive, or not responding to acts of violence or oppression. We are clearly shown throughout the Gospels and the Epistles an active nonviolence...a persistent and public witness against the Powers that seeks to bring liberation. Paul was a great example of someone who is committed to nonviolence yet could hardly be called a doormat. So, when people mistreat you--physically or emotionally--nothing Jesus or Paul or Peter said should be construed as "just take it."

    Nevertheless, Jesus or Paul or Peter never advocate seeking power over others. If we have been wronged, we aren't to seek revenge or try to turn the tables or to assert ourselves in such a way that we diminish them so that we might have the fleeting feeling of superiority.
  • Forgiveness is giving up my right to revenge. I forget where I got that quote, but it addresses two key concepts - that revenge is a valid response, but that the 'higher choice' is to forfeit that right, give it to Christ.
  • Emily,
    How to set limits and still forgive is very hard to discern. I would never want you to be accepting of mistreatment. I believe that it is impossible to truly forgive unless one has already established limits in the same way that it was necessary to have the law from Moses before having grace from Jesus. If the victim has never communicated about their boundaries, the abuser has no knowledge of doing wrong and thus the abuser can never ask for forgiveness. Jesus’ teaching about turning the other cheek did not mean he taught we should not have boundaries. When Jesus taught about how to deal with someone sinning against us, he described a pattern which would put increasing social pressure on the offender. If the offender did not change, Jesus advocated avoidance or shunning.

    Even if it is necessary to practice avoidance of an offender, it is still possible to forgive him or her. Forgiveness starts with making a commitment not to treat the offender unkindly because of their actions towards you. There are various ways to let go of the anger, but I would recommend imagining Jesus in the place of your offender. Mentally do anything you want to hurt him –put him on a cross. He accepts all of your pain and anger. He forgives you. With the forgiveness he gives you, forgive those who hurt you.
  • Richard
    As a response to Emily M on trying to find some unity between God and Jesus, I will offer how I see things. As a Christian I believe in a Triune God. Now this concept is very difficult to explain and I am not really sure how it all works out myself, but I think that is all part of the mystery of God. But in looking at God in three persons or parts or bodies or however you want to look at it, you get the idea of God, Jesus and the Spirit. Not wanting to go into deep detail, I will just say that some look at it as they are separate, but the same. For me the best explanation has been to see the unity of the three as living in community together, sharing all things with each other. None of them act alone, so God is present in "the Son" as well as with the Spirit. Jesus is just a representation of God on earth, living out the true image of God, what we as humans are supposed to aspire to be. I don't know if that helps any or just confuses you any more...I am probably going to go with more confusion =)

    On the subject of turning the other cheek I would like to say this. I do not believe that this simply means let people walk all over you, and when they do you wrong just turn around and let them do you even more wrong. If you look at the passage in the context of Jesus' message, he is saying that we are to show love for our enemies. He goes on to say that if we only love those who love us, what does that say about us. Is it that hard to love the people that love us? In demonstrating God's love for everyone, Jesus is telling us that we are to love our enemies as well, even those that hurt us.

    But that is not to say that we are to sit idly by and let evil and injustice go on unnoticed. I believe that in seeking to respect others, that we must help the victims to speak out about the injustice and make sure that they do not remain powerless. Many times victims can believe that they are the ones who caused their own pain, that they did something to deserve it, and are thus stuck in the cycle of pity and suffering. It is important to seek justice for our enemies and those who do us wrong, but that does not mean that we are not to love them.
  • Emily
    Maria Kirby said something interesting about the cycle of revenge. I have mixed feelings about how much suffering one should endure from other people. Most of the people who make me suffer are strangers. They don't know me and have nothing to lose by making me suffer. Yet to follow Christ, we are told to turn the other cheek, to see Christ in ourselves and Christ in others. But what is wrong with asking for respect? I am not out to be a saint. I also know that a certain amount of suffering is unavoidable. I grew up being bullied by other people in Catholic School, and all I heard was turn the other cheek turn the other cheek. I believe that this has resulted in the past, unfortunately, in certain acts of masochism where I allowed myself to be tortured, abused, etc. Now I can defend myself, and I am loathe to give that self-protection up for the sake of following Christ. I do practice forgiveness but some people have continued to hurt me and for them I prefer not to turn the other cheek, because to do so would be masochistic and disrespectful to myself.
  • K.McDee
    worth it. thanks for this one.
  • Doctrine comes after discipleship.

    Those are such incredibly freeing words. My exit from Christianity was driven by my inability/unwillingness to check all the mandated doctrinal boxes, and all the complications therein.

    My return came via a profound curiosity and fascination with Jesus, and the way of life his life appears to have embodied. The doctrine is slowly building itself, but very differently than I would have expected, and I'm surprisingly comfortable with fuzzy areas and gaps where I don't feel a solid commitment one way or the other.

    But this Jesus fellow - I don't understand the mechanics of the incarnation, but that's a God I can respect, and possibly even love.
  • Casey
    My wife grew up as an atheist, but had to confront the issue of faith when she rented from a Christian woman while living in California. My wife's landlady simply encouraged her to pray that God would reveal Himself, if He really existed. It was a simple prayer which mustered all the faith my wife could produce at the time.

    Well, what happened? God indeed did reveal Himself to her and the truth of Jesus, not immediately, but over time. Emily, I would also encourage you to simply ask God to reveal the truth about Jesus. We have made religion so complicated. God rewards simple faith, even if it's only the size of a mustard seed.
  • Casey
    My wife grew up as an atheist, but rented from a Christian woman when she lived for a couple of years in California. My wife's landlady simply encouraged her to pray that God would reveal Himself if He really existed. It was a simple prayer which mustered all the faith she could produce at the time.

    Well, what happened? God indeed did reveal Himself to her and the truth of Jesus. Emily, I would also encourage you to simply ask God God to reveal the truth about Jesus. We have made religion so complicated. God rewards simple faith, even if it's only the size of a mustard seed.
  • Mark--I'm consistently impressed with your wisdom. Keep up the good work. Emily, good luck to you too.
    Peace be with you both,
    -Daniel-
  • Emily M.
    I can quite easily believe in Jesus, and I can quite easily believe in God, but I find myself having a hard time believe in them both simultaneously. They make less sense together for me... sometimes. Mark said a thing about following Jesus even if there were no God. And Emily said a thing about believing in God, but Jesus not fitting with that. And these both make sense to me. But can someone say something about their unity to help me understand it, if you believe it exists? What they add to each other that alone they are insufficient in? Because I get Jesus as the prophet who taught us about love, and I get God as the powerful one who breathed life into us. But this practical teacher and this mystical god just don't seem to jive together.
  • I appreciated Emily's questions as they have been similar to my own. I’ve thought about ‘original sin’ a bunch, and as I have a hard time defining sin, I find it gets much more complicated to understand ‘original sin’. I like Mark's response and thought I'd add my two cents. I’ve been able to get a handle on the idea of 'original sin' and sin in general by looking at the cross and resurrection for which lent prepares us.

    Sin seems to be a result of evil. Evil lives to destroy and lives by destroying. Revenge is a person’s attempt to gain justice for the evil they have experienced. Revenge pays back evil for evil. Revenge leads to an escalating cycle of injuries and deaths; evil becomes greater each cycle of revenge. To stop the cycle of revenge, a person would have to submit to the consequences of someone else’s revenge (no matter how unfair) and not retaliate. The problem comes in when revenge demands the death of another. The natural instinct of self-preservation does not allow a person to submit to being killed.

    To the extent that revenge requires the death of another, physical death becomes the symbol of the just consequences of sin. Physical death is also a very natural consequence of the law of entropy. I am not trying to equate entropy and sin because without the principle of entropy, we could not have physical life, whereas sin completely destroys spiritual life and many times physical life as well.

    In the cross, Jesus experienced both the consequences of physical death and spiritual death. In the cross, Jesus submitted to the revenge of his disillusioned disciples, the religious establishment, and the local political system of both Herod and Pontius Pilate. By refusing to retaliate, Jesus did not allow evil to propagate and thus continue to live. In dying, Jesus experienced the full consequences of entropy.

    The resurrection is God’s victory over death, both physically and spiritually. God proved the power of love over hate by raising Jesus physically from the dead. Jesus did not get raised from the dead to a body subject to the laws of entropy. He was raise to a new life that was an eternal life. A life characterized by the spirit of love. Therefore, those that follow Jesus have a hope in the promise of new life, that if they submit to revenge without retaliation not only evil be defeated, but that they will share in the new eternal life of love that Jesus lives.
  • thank you for posting this exchange.
  • A wonderful response to some fantastic questions. Thanks so much to both of you for being willing to share this.
  • BMason
    Mark,
    Thanks for the insightful reply. Many of the questions Emily posed are questions I have had before even though I do consider myself a believer now. With no intentions of straying to far from the topic, and since Emily has replied, I would like to ask a couple of questions in hopes of getting your insight. You say that the cross is a subversive act, a political act that shows Jesus' love for us by turning the other cheek. Does this act show us Love because turning the other cheek IS Love because the only other option would be God's wrath? AND, how does the idea that Jesus died to make us righteous in God's sight(ideas seen in Paul's letters to the Romans and Galatians) reconcile to the idea that the cross was an act of "political jiujitsu." Thanks Mark!
    Bart
  • Emily
    Hi Mark,

    thanks for the response. I, too, was impressed by your comments about discipleship, and your idea that it is better to be a Buddhist or Catholic disciple of Jesus than a Christian one who does not really follow Jesus' radical teachings. Love and Peace to you all,

    Emily
  • AMEN Emily! AMEN Mark! And thank you both!
  • I'm really impressed that so honest a writer (both Mark and Emily) would be willing to share their inner conflicts and convictions in such an open way. That is a big encouragement for me. It takes more than a bit of courage to do that--something I certainly need.

    I wanted to comment on something Mark said. "After all, the disciples followed Jesus for years before they made up their minds about doctrine. Doctrine comes after discipleship, not before." This statement clarified something significant for me. Often times Christians insist that one must be "born again" in order to be spiritually alive (i.e., enabled to learn and grow as Christ would have us). Too often, though, being "born again" is either equated with Jesus' divinity or doctrines that the church historical has discerned (quite messily!!) through the Holy Spirit. All that to say, I appreciate Mark making that distinction and calling us to live as apprentices before all the "ideas" make sense.
blog comments powered by Disqus