Came across this article on the BBC news website. The priest in question is a member of the largest protestant church in the Netherlands.
There is nothing new about the idea I’ve bolded of course, for example Thomas Jefferson authored a version of the bible with all the supernatural elements of Jesus’s life removed. No virgin birth, no miracles, no resurrection, all in accordance with his Deist beliefs. I think it makes the point that christianity is both a religion and a cultural ideology. An atheist priest makes no sense from a religious standpoint, but is perfectly reasonable from a cultural point of view. It’s possible to consider christian values to be important without believing in God.
Christianity as a culture as well as a religion, along the same lines as Judaism, perhaps? I do believe that there are some tenets among Christianity’s tenants that are pretty much universal-one of these being belief that Jesus is the son of God and sits at his right hand.
Am I wrong in thinking this?
It seems to me that without the supernatural elements, Christ was just a crazy man. His messages of peace and how to treat your fellow man are all predicated on entering the Kingdom of Heaven and being right in the eyes of God. If it matters, I am an atheist. I suppose I’m an atheist even if it doesn’t matter.
That is the topic of discussion. If he feels he is in a position to help people, and he believes in Christianity’s practices but not in the divinity, maybe his conscience is clear.
If he’s open about his non-belief and his “flock” doesn’t seem to mind (with many of them probably agreeing with his position), why should he resign?
ETA: Personally, I don’t think this sort of atheistic Christianity is doing much good, but in my estimation it might connect very well with a significant portion of Dutch “Christians”.
Superfluous Parentheses (great name!) got it. From the article in the OP,
I’m interpreting “church thinkers” as “vocal members of the larger religious organization”, but the article goes on to quote his pastor and a parishioner who agree with, and welcome, his views.
I find the article personally disturbing, but it’s definitely an interesting read.
I’m always pleased to find more openly atheist clergy and religious people, especially the charming surprise with which it always seems to be greeted by the press and by non-religious people. I hope this becomes much more common, and not worth reporting in most instances.
I must admit that while the religious are obviously free to organize their religions in whatever way they see fit as long as they’re not harming anyone, I’m still fairly amazed that I know almost as many lapsed seminary students (including a few strong anti-theists) and atheistic/agnostic pastors (including one that kept his non-belief almost a complete secret till his death) as I do “strong” theists. Here in the Netherlands, “somethingism” seems to be the prevalent view amongst official Christians and many of the non-affiliated.
Being a 1950 baby Dutch immigrant in Canada of parents who were member of the Netherlands Reformed Church (Liberated) known as the Canadian Reformed Church in Canada, I believed for many years that the Dutch were the most religious uptight devout fundamentalist righteous God loving church goers (twice on Sunday) in the world.
What I’m reading today about religion in the Netherlands is no longer a surprise but it still amazes me that my Dutch cousins are so liberated. Actually liberated.
Mild debate is welcome in IMHO. If it looks like it is going to get hot n’ heavy later on, it may get moved. Religion-based threads usually get moved to Great Debates based on how fast the topic has gotten heated in the past…but I’m not sure this particular religious issue has come up before, so I’m giving it the benefit of the doubt. Seems to be working out so far.
I dare say there’s a spectrum of thought and belief on both sides of the Atlantic. As Alka Seltzer says, there’s nothing really new in what Mr Hendrikse’s saying – similar beliefs have been held (with varying degrees of discretion) by some priests in the Church of England (for example) for around a century or so. The idea that Christ may not have been divine, or even have existed, but that the teachings of Christianity nevertheless have value, may perhaps be a minority view, but it has been a part of serious mainstream religious thought for a good long time, now.
The difference here, as I see it, is that, rather than being a private matter of faith, in this case it’s being used by a nominally christian church as part of its marketing message.
Some people describe themselves as Cultural Christians to indicate they identify with Christian values and culture while not actually believing in Christ’s divinity. I think that’s the best term to use to describe someone like Mr Hendrikse.